The rules are flexible but not the consequences. The only reason such ideas are even on the table is because of the bailouts of 2008 and 2020 (consequences). Y

The rules are flexible but not the consequences. The only reason such ideas are even on the table is because of the bailouts of 2008 and 2020 (consequences). You do realise this will bankrupt the US right? Not because America can't afford a $200 billion dollar check but because it sets a new precedent just like the previous bailouts did. America will be de-facto guaranteeing all major public companies (TRILLIONS). This will be like dropping a nuclear bomb on the liability side of the US dollar. There will be a massive flight. And thats only the beginning of America's worries, this action will open a massive can of worms. You will be essentially giving the management of these companies a blank check. You will be giving all the unions a blank check. P.S. Shareholders are rows in a database just like how employees are a line item. In reality both are crucial parts of the equation. You do realise these "public" companies are not owned by "robber barons" (hate this term) anymore. They are usually majority held by institutions (index funds) which are mostly made up of pension funds, 401Ks, sovereign funds, college endowments etc. If you're gonna counter with "bailouts", all I'll say is who bails out the entity bailing out. If your gonna say tax the rich™, even you steal all the money from all billionaires™ in America, it will just be a rounding error for the liabilities here, then as you start going down the ladder of the rich™ it will be like a snake eating its own tail (Ouroboros). Btw what you say will play out soon (decade or two around when social security runs out) and I wonder whether if the children of the next empire will be talking about how real communism wasn't tried and it was just because they had bad leaders.