I don't think it's appropriate to say up front that they don't have to worry about tail risk. If something happens, then we have the discussion about whether to

I don't think it's appropriate to say up front that they don't have to worry about tail risk. If something happens, then we have the discussion about whether to bail them out. Maybe we should. But only after the fact. It's one thing to say "we can't make vaccines at a substantial loss", which is reasonable. It's another entirely to say "you have to promise to preserve us from all unknown unknowns". The basic goal of society is not to eliminate all risks from collective enterprise, it's to take the risks off of individuals and put them on the collectives. As a matter of principle, it just doesn't seem right, and I've never been convinced why nuclear power should get a liability exemption either. I do think bailouts can be ok. "Socializing the losses" is a feature of living in a society. But what's corrupt is to promise it before we know what the catastrophe might be, that's completely different. In general, organizations (and people) can cause damage far beyond what they can fix. That's life, and bankruptcy. And we don't want to destroy what is left that is valuable. But when that happens, their assets should be systematically divvied up and/or ownership transferred. The people who can make restitution should be required to do so, e.g. the stockholders and/or bondholders. That's what they're there for. Society already is on the hook if the worst happens, so it's not legitimate to make demands.