Not going to argue with you and I understand your perspective....

Not going to argue with you and I understand your perspective. The point I was making is that government money doesn’t come from nowhere- all the handouts that are given come from those paying tax, and the money given to the specific companies making news is being paid back very quickly in the form of tax. If these companies don’t survive and don’t invest in jobs, there is no money to hand out. It is all very well and good to argue after the event, but the results of Adairs and some of these other businesses have been due to phenomenal work (and the government played a HUGE part in helping the consumer and providing businesses with some lifelines).

That being said, if the economic system was openly communist, it would be completely sensible to distribute funds according to the maxim (or more appropriately Marxism) ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.’ *

*Again there are merits to this argument- I’m not just poking fun at communism. Graeber in his most famous work argues that people use dichotomous economic philosophies for relational experiences (communalism, broadly) and transactional experiences (capitalism broadly). Most probably observe these dichotomies with uneven personal relationships driven by the maxim above and ‘fair’ transactional experiences. The consequence of this anthropological dichotomy is situations like this, which test the concept of what constitutes ‘fairness’.