monitoring the abyss

In normal human relations, when someone we know has financial hardship, we attempt to accommodate them. We give discounts, reduce interest rates, grant more time to pay.

Bankers, on the other hand, raise interest rates and impose late fees and penalties. They rely on free market "rules of contract". They do it because, "that is what our contract says."

Fine. Live by the free market, die by the free market. Given the machinations of the banking industry, there should not be a major bank still standing.

Instead, the public has (repeatedly) bailed them out. Why would we do this? Why would we tolerate 30% interest rates from banks that are being given money for free? If the public is going to help out financially troubled enterprise, we should skip the middleman. If the interest rate is going to be 1%, then let's simply loan directly to the public instead of giving the banks a 29% cut.

From the latest news, it appears Paulson and Lewis conspired to violate SEC disclosure laws in having B of A take over Merrill. This did not hurt "the public" -- bankers eat their own. The stockholders of Bank of America, many of whom are large institutional investors, were seriously harmed by this illegal conspracy.

It's time to put an end to the double standard. Either let the banks fail pursuant to free market principles, or else admit there is no such thing as a "free market" and put regulations in place that are as beneficial to the public as they are to the rapacious banking industry.