Banks should receive billions of dollars in assistance from their governments during a financial crisis that was in large part their fault. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. v.2

As we are living in the twenty-first century, the role of the bank plays a very crucial and vital role in shaping up the economy as it acts as a backbone. The financial institution should receive ministration from the ruling regime at the time of their triggering economy meltdown. In my view, this apprehension is warranted and merits serious consideration. Authority theory and fragile rules are the key factors, and I will analyse the area in my essay. There is a myriad of arguments in favour of my stance. The most preponderant one is the Government policy due to which unwitting victims of the unforeseen financial collapse and it has threatened their establishment. As an illustration, Demonetization in India affected the lending process of the most prolific subprime lenders as well and put them in the back foot. Further, many international organizations keep an eye on the suddenness of the situation, but regime policy cannot be unseen. This is, therefore, one of the reasons that the ministry is directly or indirectly responsible. Another pivotal aspect of this argument is that fragile law rule which adversely affects the Banks. For instance, the power of the USA in 2002 created many provisions to promote individual personnel for house ownership by buying mortgages from lenders and selling them to investors who make the economy as a whole into a deep crisis and therefore put the economy into recession. Given the arguments outlined above, one can conclude that state rules and guideline, play a vital in shaping the bank policy making process. Thus, Banks should receive support and assistance in monetary terms from the authority.