The keyword is always “should”. “Should” usually implies a diktat…coercion. Unless a bank is committing fraud, ie theft, then it’s fine. Who has the right to say what an entity “should” do if they’re not violating the NAP? Thinly veiled socialism.

Replies (1)

The word implies no such thing. It is short hand for not saying "in an economically optimal scenario". No offense but this is why libertarians are seen as self righteous douchebags that don't accomplish anything. The lending function itself currently has socialism baked in because it is giving license to lend new money into existence. I'd rather it didn't but if it does, I would rather subsidize creation of new better cheaper products instead of a zero sum asset bidding war.
↑