> The reason this backstop is necessary is because without one, pulling your funds is the rational decision Have you considered that rational decision may actu

> The reason this backstop is necessary is because without one, pulling your funds is the rational decision Have you considered that rational decision may actually be a rational decision? As in, something is actually wrong there, with the way banking is done? It seems your thinking stops at "Rational actors would expose a problem with the current style of banking. Therefore, stop rational actors from acting, in order to PROP UP that same style of banking." The moral hazard is real. People who point to it are simply one step ahead of you in how such actions necessarily pan out over time, not "missing the point by a mile".