From what I could gather, there was the PPP program [0] that had a restriction of "no more than 500 employees per location". Hence, it applied to small business

From what I could gather, there was the PPP program [0] that had a restriction of "no more than 500 employees per location". Hence, it applied to small businesses, but bigger businesses segmented into several physical locations also made use of it. It did not result in redistribution of the market, since it did not explicitly lead to closing of businesses. If the program did not exist, small business would be forced to close, while the big segmented businesses would be more likely to stay afloat. So if you transactionally compare the "PPP" vs "no PPP" scenarios, the "PPP" scenario is better for small businesses. 2008-style bailouts, and the lockdown exemptions that California is doing, specifically benefit big businesses. If the big businesses were not bailed out in 2008, they would go bankrupt, opening market share to smaller players. If the COVID lockdowns affected big and small businesses the same way (say all restricted to selling essential items only), the market share of small shops would not be transferred to Walmart. Instead, the market itself would temporarily shrink. [0] https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/loans/coronavirus-relief-options/paycheck-protection-program https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/loans/coronavirus-relie...