Let it Fall?

David Brooks writes a reasoned, sober, mostly sane defense of the Fed bail out of the financial industry in today's New York Times.The main arguments are familiar. Some companies are too big to fail because their failures, while justly earned, will hurt too many people. People shouldn't be "punished" for being naive. Etc. Etc.I can agree in principle, sure. There's just one problem. It doesn't feel right to me. I have a gut (possibly knee-jerk) reaction against it. I realize that some decent people will be harmed if we let the whole real estate market collapse. But won't this also end up rewarding some people? You know, people who earn modest livings, pay our rent, stay out of debt and keep our material hunger in check? I realize that people who upgraded to McMansions when normal sized homes would have done, are not necessarily evil, but the effect they and their enablers have had on the economy is. A free market doesn't merely reward smart (or lucky) investment; it also punishes stupidity.If the entire housing market collapsed, then a lot of people who saved their pennies rather than gambling like drunken sailors would finally find themselves in a position to be the new home-owners. Personally, I've been waiting a long time to be able to own a home. I've been kept out by inflated prices and prohibitive down-payment requirements invented by co-op boards who only want to live among other super-rich and privileged people. Should these people pay the price for the collapse of the system they created? Of course, they should.What will their sentence be? What is the horrible fate that befalls a person or family who loses a home? Why, it's a sentence I've been enduring for a long time. It's called renting. And it's not that bad. It mustn't be, or the government would have been busy trying to save me from it all along. Right?