Ah, 20/20 hindsight eh?
Vilifying bankers is popular as a sport and with some justification.
However, we can either keep castigating them for lack of tact and social skills until we sink as a country or we can accept that a coin has two sides.
As they got us in the mess in the first place, it occurs to me that such power also means only they can get us out again.
Brown did try for international consensus in curbing bank and multinational threats by global rules, but didn't manage it. Mind you, at least he tried.
Intervention by the government before the banks needed it doesn't sound an intelligent argument to me. Some of the banks, Barclays for instance, didn't need it at all.
Unless the intervention you are talking about is state control per se, in which case forget it. Marx & co never predicted the planet to be able to work as one in terms of trade, and never looked further than a nation state and its needs.
Internet, cheap flights and the need for trade to feed your population means Adam Smith won that particular round, leaving Carl Marx sagging on the ropes.
I don't like the bonuses either and find them irresponsible, but it would be more irresponsible of the government if banks and multinationals left and based themselves elsewhere.
There's a reason why they are in London and not Brussels, and it isn't just the mayo poured onto chips in all the ruddy cafes......
Oh, and we get 50% + of the big bonuses.
Not to mention the rest ploughing into local economies.
Lesson 101 Trade. it doesn't have to be beautiful to be effective.
Mind you, if the government felt they had to support public sector in the same way they feel they have to support bankers, we might have a better economy anyway. We need people to spend in order to afford a social program. Something Osborne is fighting against, and all the time looking rather like King Canute.