> How, exactly? What "long term decisions" would not have been worse off if the 2008 bailouts hadn't been made and a large chunk of Western retail banking had gone insolvent, tying up accounts until it could have been resolved? There is an important difference between "this business is no longer viable", and "this business is perfectly viable in the future but is experiencing a temporary shock which its cashflow and trade credit cannot cover".

I think that OP is referring to people who have decisions that would help them weather a bad storm such as 2008 or the pandemic. Let’s say I’m a small bank that is extra extra conservative with my balance sheet and only makes responsible loans, etc. In theory, 2008 or 2020 comes along and my business is hurt but I’m still fine because of my caution. And long term I am in a great position because my competitors are soon going out of business... except they aren’t because the government props them up.

This is essentially what’s happening to Warren Buffett right now who has a war chest is billions of dollars saved up during the good times that he’s ready to invest now. But it’s not as viable a strategy because the government props everyone up.

Yes, a lot of these are viable businesses in the long term if they can just be helped now. But if the government protects them on the downside many would argue that they should get more of a share of the upside as well.