> if your industry is not dying because someone invented a better and cheaper way to meet demands, but because there is no longer as much demand (if at all!), t

> if your industry is not dying because someone invented a better and cheaper way to meet demands, but because there is no longer as much demand (if at all!), then, sorry, no, you do not deserve to be saved, or bailed out even ...wait, WHAT?! so you'd imply that bailouts are instead for industries "dying because someone invented a better and cheaper way to meet demands"? so kinda like "let's use bailouts to discourage innovation instead?!" wtf. Not that I like the "saving dying industries" idea much, but if there's any way it would make sense to apply it, it would be to pump-up/resurrect demand for things for which people may have temporarily lost taste for due to a recession, but now the recession is over, things are back up, so it's a good idea to accelerate growth by encouraging people to consume more of the expensive stuff they lost taste for! (Though some kind of Universal Basic Income would be the most sensitive way to increase consumption imho: cover the needs of the poor a bit, and also give more to those who already have more than enough so they can burn the extra cash and accelerate economic life...) P.S. Oh, and one of the lessons that millenials should be thought imho, would be that, paradoxical as it may seem, on the collective level, by spending less you're making yourselves poorer! Of course, the "on a collective level" is the part most people fail to grok...