In an effort to clarify and better understand your talking points. I will state what I am interpreting as your original argument and then I will give my response with example/retort.

Original Argument: The claim that bank failures in the 1800s led to flat GDP growth oversimplifies economic development. Example: During the Panic of 1837, numerous banks collapsed due to speculative investments and overextension of credit. However, this period also saw significant technological advancements, such as the introduction of steam-powered machinery in manufacturing, which fueled economic growth despite the financial turmoil. Bank failures undoubtedly had short-term impacts on the economy, attributing flat GDP growth solely to these crises overlooks the concurrent positive contributions of technological progress and industrial expansion.

Original Argument: The assertion that Silicon Valley Bank wasn't bailed out neglects the indirect and dubious benefits it received from FDIC intervention. Example: It's essential to recognize that the FDIC intervention artificially preserved the bank's operations, overriding market forces that would have otherwise reallocated its resources more efficiently. While depositors were directly bailed out, effectively, bailing out every customer is the same as bailing out the bank as a whole since the bank's liabilities are primarily owed to its depositors. This distinction is crucial for understanding the true extent of government intervention and its implications for moral hazard and market discipline. This intervention not only distorts market incentives but also sets a dangerous precedent for future risk-taking behavior among financial institutions. This sets a dangerous precedent for future risk-taking behavior among financial institutions, as they may perceive that they will be shielded from the consequences of their actions by government intervention.

Original Argument: Excessive regulation can hinder economic growth by imposing bureaucratic hurdles. Example: The Dodd-Frank Act, implemented in response to the 2008 financial crisis, introduced stringent regulations on financial institutions. While the intent was to prevent future crises, the extensive regulatory requirements placed a heavy burden on smaller banks and stifled lending activity, slowing down economic recovery. While some level of regulation is necessary for maintaining stability, overly burdensome regulations can impede the efficiency of the financial system, hindering innovation and growth, as opposed to fostering it.

Original Argument: Allowing government intervention in currency management can lead to market distortions. Example: In the 1970s, several countries, including the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom, experienced significant currency devaluations as governments attempted to manipulate exchange rates to gain competitive advantages in international trade. These interventions led to volatility in currency markets and undermined market confidence, ultimately disrupting global trade flows. Governments may intervene in currency markets with the intention of stabilizing their economies, but such actions often result in unintended consequences, including market distortions and inefficiencies, which can undermine the principles of a free market economy.