Then a crisis happened, where a lot of banker's decisions turned out wrong due to factors that cannot reasonably be said to be the fault of those bankers. A lot of people, who were told beforehand that their money was indeed at risk in trade for that "interest" demanded the government step in and guarantee the deposits (which the government didn't do for them, but implemented for all savings from then on).
This meant that anytime a sizable bank would topple, it would cost the government massive amounts of money, which meant the government became complicit, by necessity more than by bribes, in making banks grow and bailing them out if "risk" strikes.
Which is what you're complaining about.
BTW: the "risking your own capital" demand also meant that only the wealthiest of people and their immediate families could reasonably get jobs at banks, for obvious reasons. And I'm certainly not unhappy that particular tidbit ended.
Just because the government insures deposits to keep public trust in banks does not mean that it justifies banker's high wages. It's actually the opposite - the fact that bankers require government insurance 1) takes risk away from them (meaning the risk that "earns" them money according to economists isn't as high) and 2) they should be paying more money for insurance or using profits to mitigate risk instead of paying themselves. Insuring deposits has resulted in the opposite - it encourages risk and overpayment.
My point is that you're wrong. It's not (or at least it was not) the banks that demand the government take the risk away from banks, it was voters, you and me.
And I'm positive that today, a vote would turn out the same.
So this whole too much risk followed by bailouts process is exactly what the average voter wants (in the sense that it's what he'll vote for). Sure they'll complain about the bailouts but faced with the prospect of losing their savings (as they will naturally be when a bailout is proposed) ...
"Banks require government insurance" doesn't mean they demand it, it means they need it or people won't trust them. Both banks and people demand the insurance, because without it everyone fails.
But that's not true and that's easy to prove: back in the day, not every employee of GS was a partner! Just like not every employee of a law firm or an accountancy is a partner.
There are plenty of other industries too where owning something needs a massive amount of capital, and risks large amounts of capital - factories, airlines, even farms - and yet people get jobs all the time.
Then a crisis happened, where a lot of banker's decisions turned out wrong due to factors that cannot reasonably be said to be the fault of those bankers. A lot of people, who were told beforehand that their money was indeed at risk in trade for that "interest" demanded the government step in and guarantee the deposits (which the government didn't do for them, but implemented for all savings from then on).
This meant that anytime a sizable bank would topple, it would cost the government massive amounts of money, which meant the government became complicit, by necessity more than by bribes, in making banks grow and bailing them out if "risk" strikes.
Which is what you're complaining about.
BTW: the "risking your own capital" demand also meant that only the wealthiest of people and their immediate families could reasonably get jobs at banks, for obvious reasons. And I'm certainly not unhappy that particular tidbit ended.