At the higher levels, yes

There's tremendous dissonance between the philosophy that drives banks' treatment of their own customers, especially at retail or SME level, and their own relationship with public finance.

If my household behaved in the same way, proportionally, as the large banks have of late, making risky investments that I could not underwrite if conditions changed, the large banks would themselves foreclose on me when those conditions did change. They would do so without compunction, solemnly reciting T&C that rely on the "moral hazard" argument. Like George Thorogood and his landlady in One Bourbon, One Scotch and One Beer. Risky behaviors can't be encouraged. Those who fail, go to the wolves. So they should etc.

Yet these banks cannot countenance exactly this same argument being made by the guardians of the public purse.

Under these conditions, the invocation of the fatuous "moral hazard" argument by the same bankers against supporting failing households or SMEs is offensive, hypocritical.

The only reason they do this, is because they can. It won't last forever. The climate of stakeholder involvement is changing and one day, maybe sooner than some people think, there will be mass participation and deliberation over issues of the investment of taxpayer monies. Including but not limited to bank bailouts. The spectacle of chief execs having to make their cases to large numbers of citizens, and then having their plans adjudicated by those citizens, is ambrosia to many. It would be fairer, more just and more appropriate than the situation we have now. Maybe they'd receive bailout, maybe not, but either way, it would be so very much better than what has actually happened both in the US and the UK.

Back to what henky said above. That's one of things I'm working for, off the clock but with some commitment. That's the one thing that might be of benefit to more than a small group.