A lot of people viscerally dislike banks, probably in part because no one likes depending on other people that much, and banks people depend on rather a lot.
When you add to that a natural social class resentment towards those who move money around, as opposed to people who do manual labor who often say "I work for a living," and with real asperity, banks are rarely popular.
Andrew Jackson made a political fortune crushing the bank of the United States, and lots of people always will win plaudits from some for railing as he did against "the money power."
Banks one could say haven't been popular since at least the time of Christ in the Temple with the money changers, and yet, so long as we live in the world that we do, healthy banks are important for everyone.
Look at the complaints nowas to the recovery which boils down to this: banks are too cautious lending money.
Of course, we ended up in the soup because banks weren't cautious enough lending money.
Maybe bankers need a hug?
But more seriously, there are numerous economics lessons to be learned from the JP Morgan affair as to the recent loss of $2 billion.
First, that sounds like a huge amount of money, and it is, except that banks always deal in relatively large amounts of money compared to what all but the wealthiest individuals would.
For example, Warren Buffet is usually worth between $40 and $60 billion, depending on fluctuations in the value of financial markets, something that right there is a cautionary tale about banks always having one thing that is part of what they are: risk.
Banks exist to manage risks that individuals could not do themselves generally speaking, and on a scale that is more efficient than would be the case for most people, if that raises what is the first issue so obvious in the J.P. Morgan case: agency issues.
Banks manage other people's money, which in the dreaded "literature" makes the bank your "agent," while your the principal, the latter being the one the bank is supposed to take care of.
The biggest single lesson in the JP Morgan fiasco is that it's really important to have good agency issue controls in place so some overeager beaver doesn't gamble too much with other people's money.
That would imply that one thing they ought to do with the "Volker" rule that is sure to be debated a whole lot after this affair is really think about how much of the banks assets should be allowed to be at risk in terms of value and leverage.