The premise at face value is correct. But let's consider what is left unsaid. First, if the govt didn't increase rates, we would have stubbornly high inflation

The premise at face value is correct. But let's consider what is left unsaid. First, if the govt didn't increase rates, we would have stubbornly high inflation. So instead of giving money to 1 specific person (Dimon/bankers) we would be giving it to many faceless recipients (Halliburton, Blackwater, MVM [1], Hilton? ) . I'm not sure what is better, but in the former case, at least we don't end up with inflation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MVM,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MVM,_Inc. Second, the govt is able to give this money away because govt is the sole price-setter the cost of money, via fed. This, despite decades of evidence that price setting -in any industry- doesn't work. Yet, the US public continues to vote for status quo without any challenge to Fed policy. Ignorance is bliss, yet the majority of US voters insist to give money to Dimon. So, should one be outraged at handouts for dimon & pals, even if the evidence makes it clear that this was willingly accepted by the majority of the US public ?