In a free market, companies have little problem assembling and de-assembling themselves via mergers, buyouts, spinoffs, startups, etc. Bailing out companies is an implicit endorsement of the current structure of that industry, which, 11 years into a bull market, may be far from its natural or optimal state. For example, bailing out US airlines implicitly endorses the 3-major system, as opposed to 6 (Continental, US Airways, Northwest) from a decade or so ago -- a time which didn't include $200 change fees, 10-wide 777's, "basic economy", etc.
Why should the gov't reward fiscal irresponsibility (stock buybacks) AND a terrible airline product (and thirdly, maintain airlines' negotiating power over employees), as opposed to a "new normal" which might include some fresh ideas?
I wouldn't oppose intentionally restructuring or regulating any of these industries. That is not what we were talking about, however. We were talking about simply letting those businesses fail, and seeing what happens on the other side of this. That could result in something better, or it could result in something worse. Given the situation, I think it's likely it would result in greater concentration. I do not think let it burn down and the chips fall where they may is a good strategy.
Shouldn't the government, at the very least, wait a little while to see which companies or industries are actually close to failing, before committing $2+ trillion? American Airlines had 3.8 billion cash as of 12/31/19. Its total OpEx + Interest was about $8.2 billion in 2019. So it had nearly a half-year of expenses covered, before any cutbacks or preservation methods. I'm not an airline accountant, perhaps some obligatory expenses are hidden in COGS which increases their burn rate. But it would appear that AA could survive about 5 months even if it did nothing to reduce expenses -- if they cut back appropriately, perhaps they could extend that to a year. There's also equity and debt markets available if AA needs cash now.
I just don't see why the government felt it was necessary to immediately reassure companies they would be protected, or why, one month in, you are discussing "letting those businesses fail," as if it's a foregone conclusion. In fact, it seems highly likely they would survive intact. Poorer, but probably not bankrupt.
> There's also equity and debt markets available if AA needs cash now.
this is exactly how it should have been. If stock buybacks (or dividends, i don't think they are different) during good times, then equity raising during bad times is the counter balance.
No gov't bailout necessary. There will be a price that they can raise cash at. It's not gonna be nice for the current equity holders, but they knew what they bought when they buy equity.
And if the company fails, the gov't bailout should be for the unemployed in the form of social security and healthcare. Not for business continuity.
Why should the gov't reward fiscal irresponsibility (stock buybacks) AND a terrible airline product (and thirdly, maintain airlines' negotiating power over employees), as opposed to a "new normal" which might include some fresh ideas?