There's an old saying, "One man's loss is another man's gain". One can question whether that should be up to both of them. Usually it is just shrugged off. However, when the true state is that one man's gain is a 1000 men's loss, then it bears a bit more consideration. I owned stock in Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Washington Mutual until about two years ago, when I sensed that something really hinky was developing. I got out of all three, with a gain, and felt reasonably insulated from them. This was not to be. These, along with several other so-called banks, led by the now richly rewarded people, turned the whole economy into a nightmare with their machinations. I lost about $300,000 in what was really just weeks when the economy "froze up". That was when I decided that those people who seemed to hold the keys to the kingdom needed to be restrained with shackles for which I held the key. I believe that making the profit motif a lot less profitable for those in charge might lead to somewhat less self-agrandizing behaviour and reducing the power and influence of those businesses might reduce their destructive potential. I see the power of the FDA to limit the distribution of toxic products to the populace as a good, if itself insufficient, model for the control of the financial industry.