One amazing thing is that the "key under the mat" idea has been floated for decades[1], keeps getting discredited and keeps reappearing. It feels like we're going to be having the same discussion forever.
Another fundamental point that Schneier is very strong on is that in most countries, cybersecurity responsibilities have been co-opted by the military. Being that the military thinks in offensive terms (even when considering defence), that's the position they take here as well, which explains why they would rather hoard zero days to use as weapons than disclose them so that everybody can patch and be secure.
Many governments would rather bear a certain load of cybercrime than become less powerful themselves. In that sense, the back door argument is for them irrelevant.
Banks don't loose money due to weak crypto, but because of credit card fraud (no crypto involved). Customers lose money because they lose control over their endpoints (lose password confidentiality or SIM gets jacked or phone lost), or because they want to send Natasha from Minsk $5000 for a flight to visit them.
The argument to make to politicians is always: do you trust the other politicans not to spy on you when they are in power? That will always make them think twice.
Another fundamental point that Schneier is very strong on is that in most countries, cybersecurity responsibilities have been co-opted by the military. Being that the military thinks in offensive terms (even when considering defence), that's the position they take here as well, which explains why they would rather hoard zero days to use as weapons than disclose them so that everybody can patch and be secure.
[1]https://www.schneier.com/academic/archives/1997/04/the_risks...