> That gambling actually led to people getting those homes. The people losing them was the correction.

Well, yes but there is a distinction between "led to" vs "losing them". The first is indirect, the second is not.

You could expand that as "That gambling by banks offering these risky mortgages to unsuspecting people, actually led to people getting those homes. When the banks who did this did not bear the costs of their actions, and passed them on to their customers, the people losing their homes was the correction."

Yes, the issue with too big to fail is that it can equivalently be rephrased as too big to learn. And this just came out: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-07-19/how-wall-...

Sound familiar?