Bailouts aren't following some rules of fairness, they're for specific reasons like preventing greater economic problems (2008) or national security (probably Intel). You might disagree that those are the best ways to address those risks but that's why we elect the government to make those decisions and act on them instead of letting the country collapse - which is arguably more important than social services which won't really matter if there's no money to fund them or the country has been taken over by some hostile enemy.
Is like the country is not already collapsing due to lack of social services compared to the supposed enemy which already has higher lifespan while having 10x lower gdp per capita.
> Bailouts aren't following some rules of fairness
And people wonder why populism came back. Huge transfers of wealth aren't about 'fairness', its about preventing greater economic problems that the people who received the bailout say will happen if they don't get bailed out.
At the end of the day, this line of thought is going to fuck over the country far more than any depression would.
It's the same line of thought that says countries should subsidize local agriculture. The alternative would be greater specialization in food production and greater risks if those specialized countries fail to provide for their dependants. No doubt there's some influence of farmers trying to get wealth transferred to themselves but that doesn't mean it doesn't also benefit the rest of the population.
