I wouldn't worry about that. I fully expect the federal reserve to "fix" this by buying the toxic assets with printed money.
Many people cite the 1984 bailout of Continental Illinois as a turning point, but there are many examples before and after that.[1]
Bad execution is punished by going out of business.
This forces everyone to be hyper efficient at taking raw resources and getting useful value out of them. Thus people have more goods for less money.
People get confused because government gets involved and you end up with cronyism.
Free market is as another comment says, the minimum amount of regulation possible that isn’t killing people.
Government was involved from the beginning; capitalism was historically a redirection of the power of government from serving the feudal aristocracy to serving the mercantile class.
The utopian (and largely self-inconsistent) rationalizations for capitalism as something that magically exists separate from government and cronyism came much later than capitalism itself, and most of them even later than the early socialist critique of the reality of capitalism.
That's true for the entrepreneurs, but this was about the investors and it tends not to be true for them. It should be.
Not sure if it's just part of the joke, but the word is "tenet".
But what's equally important is ... if they are going to lose everything, how much of the social, economic and political infrastructure do they destroy on the way down?
It may well be that the era of the mall is over, for example. But malls crashing and burning as the mortgages associated with them fail is very different than a slower process in which there is time to think about repurposing and to give those directly affected to contemplate their options.
Because many people who still technically had jobs had their hours drastically cut, and because it's an economic stimulus, not strictly welfare.