If a company is behaving unethically (but not necessarily illegally), whistleblowers can help in informing the public as to the abuse. It is especially needed in times of crisis (like this one), but because it's a time of crisis, I would assume the motivations of whistleblowers may be less strong if they don't feel entirely financially secure.

This seems far too error prone for my liking, particularly considering the sub-optimal way in which we handle whistleblowers.

If we have such little control over our financial system that we have to literally rely on hope, wouldn't it make sense to maybe pull back the covers on this monstrosity and starting figuring out what's inside?

And if public policy makers once again deem the system "battle ready" and come asking for a handout again in 10 years, what then? If someone ran their family like this, we'd call them a bit of a dummy, wouldn't we? So why is this acceptable for the financial system upon which our society (aka: our individual lives) rests?

If we hadn't grown so accustomed to this madness, I think a lot of people would be more agitated by it, but it's been with us for so long we seem to just accept it.