On the Fact that One of the Primary Goals of the Dodd-Frank Act Is Financial Stability

Sound good but as any sane economist will tell you, powerful markets do not advance through stability but through dynamism (creative destruction, as Schumpeter called it). And what kind of an idiotic lawmaker would ever come up with such a concept as "systemically significant" (leaving it up to government regulators to define it later of course), in which the regulators quite literally have a stake in making sure that these banks and other financial institutions don't fail AND STILL MAINTAIN THAT YOU'RE GETTING RID OF "TOO BIG TO FAIL"? I mean, does that make any sense to you? It sure as hell doesn't to me.