[pandesmos]

I don’t understand this stuff. Politicians have directly ordered closures. If your bottom falls out from under you because you were playing fast and loose that seems inherently different than being told from above “you just cease your main method of generating revenue until we tell you otherwise.”

[anonuser123456]

You're asking me,(general tax payer) to give you money to ride out the storm, but you get all the private gains in the future while I take the risk now.

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.

[fountainofage]

This is the solution. Have the firms issue stock and the government purchase the stock. Obviously make it ultra-preferred with no one else getting preference before the government gets paid.

If firms don't like that deal, they can either get their own funding from the private markets or go out of business.

[graeme]

If a business is in a liquidity crunch because they’re shut down and may go bankrupt, their stock is....basically worthless. I don’t think you’ve thought this one through.

[pirocks]

I find it interesting that this entire thread seems to be about fairness. Whether something is fair to corporations/people really shouldn't be the point. It should be about keeping people alive and having a functioning/prosperous economy. I'd much rather have that than a "fair" economy.

[throwawaysea]

GP is making the point that in this case, the government caused the insolvency of these businesses in significant part through authoritarian closures, not through the irresponsibility of those running the business. Therefore the government (taxpayers) owe them recompense to make them whole.