>porridge spitting and bed unmaking back before the Great Depression and we found the "just right" scenario where bankers are prevented from massively messing with the system. Unfortunately the big bad wolf (government) came by looking for piggies ($$$) and blew the house (Glass/Steagal) down.
>
>Unfortunately "just right" doesn't last forever. In this case the bankers correctly observed that G-S gave them a massive competitive disadvantage compared to foreign entities who are not bound by G-S and local entities conveniently incorporated to fall outside G-S. Competition required change. GM shows what happens if the same old ways are stubbornly observed after the world or market changes.
The change that was made loosened government control over a market dominated by the biggest earners and apparently smartest people available. But they turned out to be dummkopfs who set themselves and everybody else alight. In hindsight it might have been better to extend G-S to prevent external firms taking advantage but the screams from government-haters would have been audible on Mars. So we got what we got.

GM's problems were of their own making and not comparable. The systemic risk posed by G-S repeal was already known, we learned it in the lead up to the Great Depression. Enacting bad ideas for the sake of change is not helpful and in many cases will cause more harm. We see it with G-S, we saw it in time with Hillarycare and we see it again with Obamacare. There is a balance between regulation and the free market. Once it's found, as with G-S, we should strive to not mess with it.

>The end result is that governments will have to enact rules far more domineering than G-S ever was.

I'll give you that's the likely outcome, but it is by no means best. We should reinstate Glass-Steagall, separate the investment side from the depositors money and restore order.