It is precisely because banking is a fundamental and important service sector that there is so much outrage at the actions of those in positions of responsibility within it.
Apparently investigations here in the UK are ongoing but lots of evidence given so far to the Commons select committees, for example, point to either,
1. Incompetence on a monumental scale, for which individuals should have been sacked years ago.
Or,
2. Corruption, greed and criminality. (e.g, the libor scandal).
Yes, this applies to the investment banking "arm" which is why the UK, at least, is aiming to separate that gambling activity from the "high street" banks that serve the interests of the people of a country.

To quote employees of other service sectors who clearly acted without integrity, including committing acts of murder, does not add value to the argument regarding banking.

And, yes, politicians have been complicit in this over many years; such as a certain chancellor of the exchequer who stated that there will be no further boom and bust, at more or less the height of a boom.
The UK has been living beyond its' means for many years, punching above its' weight, call it what you will. Individuals have done this, organisations also, but the state has also indulged itself and those who should have known better did nothing, said nothing.

My profession is irrelevant; I am aged nearly 3 score year and 10, and my comments are based on a life-time of coming across people who have a lack of integrity; I have left employments because I couldn't stomach the lack of integrity of systems or individuals placed in places of authority within those systems; when did you last see a politician, or a banker for that matter, resign as a matter of principle? That used to happen in the UK but it was quite a long time ago and such integrity no longer lies within the experience of a lot of folks here in the UK.
Integrity has been replaced with weasel words of apology and reliance on the short memories of the majority of the voting population. None of this has been helped by the specialisation of the professions which themselves have been self-serving; arguably, the worst example lies, again, in politics which used to be occupied by people who had some background experience outside of politics. Lots of scope herein for reform.

And, it ain't easy to see a way out of this: the holy grail of "growth" isn't happening. And anyway, what is so great about growth? Why is that such an essential to the human condition? Scope here for another thread.

Some more input has continued to explore the issue of wealth; banks do not generate wealth as I understand it (check back with Sir John Harvey Jones RIP for this). As mentioned above, they have generated profits and not even for many of their share holders; quite a few banks have destroyed the profits of their share holders, such as the Northern Rock which was beget from a building society of all things!
Refer back to this guy who in his own small way is trying to carry out the functions of a domestic bank in his own area of the UK.
Your Savings | Burnley Savings and Loans

That is probably enough for now; none of us are squeaky clean in this, and there is a long, long road ahead including actions through the courts, if there is any justice to be had in this world.

__________________
Dave

I read an excellent book a few years ago by the Australian political theorist Clive Hamilton, it's called 'Growth Fetish' and he tackles the questions that you ask. He doesn't concentrate so much on the political economy of growth but instead explores the reasons behind our fascination with materialism and consumerism. It's well worth a read if your interested in such matters.

Thanks for the book suggestion: I am familiar with some of the ideas, judging by the review below, without having read this particular book.
John (The United States)'s review of Growth Fetish

From that review, I am also pretty familiar with this statement:-
"The greatest danger for consumer capitalism", writes Hamilton, "is the possibility that people in wealthy countries will decide that they have more or less everything that they need"
But, how to achieve such a potential utopia is outside my knowledge.

There was a whole glut of such theories in earlier decades and it is interesting that this one dates from the last decade; within another thread concerning "where is a good place to retire/live on this planet" there is little sign that Australia has adopted the principles and practices of non-growth.
http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/hub...9-3#post408945

__________________
Dave