True. Of course, we can't have it both ways. Much of the success we've had as a country has come from loose money, too. If we want to say "if only we hadn't killed Glass-Steagall" it's only fair to recognize that the benefits of doing so (crazy large, and yes risky, investments) would also have gone away. We now know that a hyperactive investment period went bust to put us in a nasty recession. Do we know that a stagnant economy might not have also done the same?
The Feds have been fucking around with financial regulation since the 80s. From the moment the tinkering began, instead of the stable and consistently growing financial system that existed from the 50s, it's been boom-bust-boom-bust, rinse-repeat. That's not good for anyone except those who speculate on booms and busts.
Add to that the widespread abandonment of pensions in favour of 401k plans, and the pressure on social security and medicare, and you're facing a situation where it is harder and harder to contemplate actually retiring at any point. My ex-Father-in-Law had his retirement savings wiped out shortly before being forced into early retirement in the 90s. Through no choice of his own, he had to start drawing on his retirement funds at the exact time that they were at their lowest unit values for a decade, and he did not have the luxury of time to wait for them to come back.
This is why a boom and bust cycle sucks, and this is why regulation to engender stability in he financial markets is necessary. The banks exist because we allow them to, not the other way around.
