> I am upset at myself for hoping anyone in this process would act like a decent human being. I hear you that you were hoping these big institutions would do w

> I am upset at myself for hoping anyone in this process would act like a decent human being. I hear you that you were hoping these big institutions would do what was best for people and the country in a time like this and they didn't deliver on that. If helpful, this is how I thought of it. If the fees are higher on bigger loans, and the company's goal is to make money, this was the right decision for them. These banks are as successful as they are because they are the best at optimizing for the goals the system we've created has set. Maybe in a special case like this, they could've chosen to go against this incentive. But that would probably be worse in the long term. The real problem at hand is that the incentives we've set aren't the ones that we want anymore. We know it needs to be fixed, but it's really hard because our economy is this tightly coupled web. No one really knows what will happen if we start changing incentives. So we've decided not to change much yet. In a way, if banks had gone against their incentives in this moment of acute need, it really would've been a lie. A red herring that might make us delay changing the incentives even longer. I guess the way I'm holding this is without righteousness. There's no single individuals in these banks that are the evil ones to blame. We've just created a system of incentives that ensures whoever is making certain decisions will keep making the ones that are made. It doesn't matter who, they'll always be made. It's like darwinism. So let's really spend time thinking about what change we want to make that would reward people for making the choices we want to see.