"At the other end of the spectrum ..." Technocrats are not some kind of flawless gods. You admit the regulators "contributed" to the US crisis. They allowed private "technocrats", "professionals" to implement bad business policies and even more, to use fraudulent practices. The elementary wrong-doing was theirs. Every time we assign "technocrats" some task to be treated as technocratic as possible, we must take this into account.
The malaise = no economic rebound, rising inequality Economic and social relations are shaped on a master - servant model. Let's be clear, this goes beyond the services economy, it's about personal services, not impersonal offers. And this is coming with growing economic uncertainty. So we will be servants of the rich and we will have very unstable job prospects, the master's option on our welfare will be discretionary. The good thing is that this model is able to sustain growth and employment. So there is no reason to address economic inequality, it is the key for our future prosperity. Towards the end of the article the servants totally disappear from the perspective of the new society, we only acknowledge about them the fact that they pose an intimacy, privacy problem to their masters. And that is the moral issue of this projected evolution. I'm glad our masters are thinking about the future and they are deeply moral individuals.
As long as the natural solution is avoided, we are on the moral hazard ground. Deposit owners should learn that risky banking is subject to potential loss. How about bad bankers ? How about governments ? How will they learn bad banking is a risk ? The deposit owners are actually paying with their money. Which is the corresponding severe measure imposed to policy makers ? A key concept in the debate is risky banking. Maybe part of the solution is safe banking. Also, risk should be acknowledged. Then why don't we let risk work the natural way ? Maybe because the policy makers would then become directly accountable ?
In a competitive economy innovation can be a major factor in maximizing the profit. But the main goal is always maximizing the profit. Can innovation and profit be contradictory at some point ? Of course they can. This is the case of self-sacrifice profit. Meaning that short term positive balance is incentive enough to sacrifice the future. And if true competition is not active anymore (too big to fail positions on market) incentive for innovation is once more reduced. Such phenomena are already present. It's the case of banking and financial sector. We live an era of profit maximization and less market competition.