As a Finnish taxpayer, I think the deal is good:
- It will reduce the need for taxpayer money in the bailout
- It will reduce the confidence in the banks and the corrupt system as a whole
- It will punish the speculators that have both loans and money in the bank (sucker, your arbitrage just shrank by 990 pips how do you feel about that?)
- Which will further reduce the confidence on any tricks that the banks keep pulling from their hats to tie up your money in their value-reduction schemes such as pension plans, mutual funds, etc.
- It will keep the banks afloat for a few more months and give everybody with a brain a chance to invest in bitcoin.
As an Estonian taxpayer, I think the deal is morally bad, no matter how good is economic "analysis".
There is no defense for armed robbery.
This is akin to blowing up a disco because it is partially owned by a mob - irrespective of the human cost.
Yes, the only moral thing was to let banks compete with same terms as the other companies do. You know, it is considered fraud, if you sell something you don't have, eg. banks are doing with their fractional reserve deposits. To me, the moral alternative would have been to refuse to bail out from day 1, or even better not allow the banks to operate fraudulently.
This goes into the right direction, if my ethics is concerned. Bankruptcy would have been better.