It would be interesting to compare the total scale of the banking bailout and other banking losses with the total dividends paid by the banks since, I don't know, how far back should we go? 30 years seems fair, that's a generation, and gets us back to the last big one.

Is it just me or do banks actually not make any money? It seems to me all they do is shift money from governments to shareholders, and timeshift the payments. When things are fairly stable, they make small (in percentage terms) profits running big risks that don't actually materialise, and tell themselves they are the New Gods of the economy. Then the risks materialise (risks paid for, if you like, with those profits made in the easy years, all of which have of course been paid out long ago), and they get bailed out. The profit was in effect a pre-emptive distribution of the bailout, but because it is shifted in time they get away with it. If I went to the government and said I wanted a big slug of taxpayers cash to pay to my shareholders right now I would never get it, why does it make any difference if I make the payout first, and then take my feckless backside off begging to the Treasury?

What I suspect is that banking just isn't an industry like car making, and, if market disciplines cannot apply (because a big bank cannot be allowed to fail) then nor should market incentives (fat bonuses and dividends). As a rule a fat return should be a price for a high risk and as we have all just had deomnstrated actually running a bank is a low risk activity.