Perhaps it would help to reconsider these matters in terms of "risk." IOW government acted to manage the "risk" of a financial Armageddon. This prevents argument on the basis of proof against people who refuse to swallow razor blades because they expect negative consequences they can't prove until it is too late. It allows people to wear seatbelts and not drive drunk and governments to issue vehicle safety ratings to assist consumers to exercise informed choice. Nobody can say 'in a particular case' whether swallowing the razor blade or driving drunk or refusing to wear a seatbelt or allowing AIG to crash will have destructive consequences or might even benefit you as you have postulated. What we can do is assess the empiric evidence/risk and take steps in cases where the risk is sufficiently severe to be worth preventing rather than waiting to find out whether it actually happens or not.

Apart from that, we can agree to disagree. In which case, by your own logic you should not expect any further responses from me until you "prove" that I actually exist. ;-)