> Because the banks were "too big to fail," and not bailing them out would have been catastrophic. Because nobody had ever stopped them from growing so big, and

> Because the banks were "too big to fail," and not bailing them out would have been catastrophic. Because nobody had ever stopped them from growing so big, and so systemically integrated, in the first place. If these banks are too big to fail (and thus shouldn't exist), what does that imply about large state govts (such as CA) and the US federal govt? Note that regulation is, by definition, systemic risk.