Assuming for the moment that, even though we might want to see a socialist revolutionary answer to the the problem, that is not on the cards right now, what is the best solution?
Is it to bank-roll these failing, NY-based banks. Surely it would be much better to let them go to the wall. Plainly America (and even more Britain) has too large a financial sector. What possible virtue is there in shoring up this bloated and parasitic apparatus?
The shakedown is the bankers' argument that 'apres moi, le deluge'. But they have confused their survival with the economy's survival. Banks prospering is not the same thing as the economy prospering. They are saving the money, but they are not lending it. It would make more sense for the government to lend the money direct to households and businesses, than go on supporting these failed entities.
For the finance employees, we should demand retraining, in a more useful trade, like engineering, or plumbing, maybe.
Doug was very critical of the purportedly over-subsidised denizens of Alaska. So why subsidise New York?
For many years now, thanks to the success of its financial services, New York has been a net contributor to the national accounts. (There is of course a specialised debate amongst Marxists, and others, about whether the financial sector is parasitical upon the productive economy, but let's put that to one side.) But now, the financial district, at least, has grown too large, and demands government cash to keep its executives in monster bonuses.
Why reward failure? Let them fall. A leaner, more productive financial sector would serve our needs better than a bloated monster sucking on the government tit.