Came across something useful. Have a look
"Taking a long term historical view, Krugman argues that there is a negative correlation between the business model of banking and economic stability. Whenever banking got exciting and interesting, attracted intellectual talent and bankers were paid well, it got way out of hand and jeopardized the stability of the real sector. Conversely, periods when banking was dull and boring were also periods of economic progress.
To support his thesis, Krugman divides American banking over the past century into three phases. The first phase is the period before 1930, before the Great Depression, when banking was an exciting and expanding industry. Bankers were paid better than in other sectors and therefore banking attracted talent, nurtured ingenuity and promoted innovation. The second phase was the period following the Great Depression when banking was tightly regulated, far less adventurous and decidedly less lucrative - in other words banking became boring. Curiously, this period of boring banking coincided with a period of spectacular progress. The third phase, beginning in the 1980s, saw the loosening of regulation yielding space for innovation and expansion. Banking became, once again, exciting and high paying. Much of the seeming success during this period, according to Krugman, was an illusion; and the business model of banking of this period had actually threatened the stability of the real sector. Krugmans surmise accordingly is that the bank street should be kept dull in order to keep the main street safe."
