What makes this especially disgusting is that JPMorgan doesn't fundamentally do anything to earn the vast majority of what it does. Apple earns billions but at least it designs, builds and delivers millions of tangible products that people love and use daily -- beautiful tools. JPMorgan, like many similar banks and Wall Street type entities, is essentially just a financial organism that has inserted itself into the world's money flows, and, for the most part, does not provide any tangible benefit to the rest of the society. If anything, I think it increases risk to society: greater chance of national economic crises, greater chance of wars driven by profiteers, distortions to the political debate and governance, etc.
Plenty of company's use several banks at the same time so assuming you can get loans in the 300+ million range from mid sized banks it only takes 10 of those to get into the range where 3+ billion range. Is it slightly more efficient to deal with a single entity, sure but the overhead of multiple 100+ million loans is tiny relative to whatever your actually using the money for.
Certainly there is value in facilitating the "world's money flows"? Agreed that using taxpayer money to gamble is "disgusting" but surely the companies that do the things we all know and love (google, apple, etc) have benefited from the capital markets, and thus big banks like JPM. Without being public companies could google and apple have become what they are today?
