There is a much more fair way to do this. Firms simply issue new stock and sell it to the market. Firms get the capital they need, the general tax payer isn't holding the bag.
If firms don't like that deal, they can either get their own funding from the private markets or go out of business.
Firms are priced based in the long term future profits. By injecting capital immediately, the firms liquidity problems are resolved.
It sounds like you've never heard of convertible preferred shares. Or maybe you have and haven't thought this one though?
What about non-incorporated businesses? That’s the bulk of small business ordered to shut down.
Fairness matters in an economy and government. If less people have faith in its institutions it will begin to break down.
There needs to be a trade off.
Yes, not doing a bailout would be imprudent. But this is apparently the only time we get any say. When we don't get to reform irresponsible business/fiscal practices in good times, but they have us over the barrel in bad times, the predictable outcome is spite.
A 2.2 trillion dollar check was just signed with the american tax payer's name on it. That is money could have gone to retirements, heath-care, and schools. It is reasonable to be concerned that it go to an equal or better purpose, and not to buy a second yachts for bankers.
The point is that people have been conditioned to believe we must use public money to save private interests.
If you want long term functioning markets, shareholders have to hold the bag. Otherwise the Bernie Sanders crowd will get bigger and bigger...and rightfully so. And eventually the system will topple via revolution (political or otherwise).
Economic activity would decline substantially regardless of government action.
Other countries handled this better. South Korea and Taiwan are good examples of countries that ramped up testing and did not need to shut down society.
Shutdowns are not inevitable. They are a result of government failure, and the government should compensate businesses that it orders to shut down.
By contrast, the United States is less dense than those countries, significantly farther away from China, the richest country in the world, and had months to prepare.
I find it unconvincing that the United States could not have rolled out broad testing and tracing if it had started back in January when the virus was known to be a threat. Even if you're right and all it did was buy time before an inevitable shutdown, shortening the shutdown would have hugely helped to limit the economic damage.
When your business does well, you reap the benefits, not me. The belief is you’re entitled to it, because you’re the one who took the risk. So how is it now that we allow you to risk public safety or otherwise we take on the risk and give you grants or cheap loans?