alt Hacker NewsI don't disagree with most of what you say, but one crucial point you miss in my view is that letting public trust in banks & "the economy" collapse is really "expensive" (in hard productivity, not just on paper).
This is what was allowed during the great depression and what we desperately tried to avoid in later crises.
Western democracies are not set up at all to let the government direct and compensate millions of workers on the turn of a dime; micromanagement by government in such a situation can be expected to be extremely wasteful and ineffective, and this only got worse, because we have less generic/unqualified use for human labor than in the past (construction, railroads, motorways, heavy industry), and specialists are even harder to manage.
If everyone stops even just believing in the ability of local supermarkets to provide toilet paper next week or, on the other end of the spectrum, starts distrusting the banking system/dollar entirely, then the consequences can be extensive, expensive and slow to recover.
It might even be worth it to feed taxpayer money to rich greedy capitalists because the public comes out on top still by avoiding that trust collapse.
That's fair, but I think you're again conflating trust in the overarching institution with trust in its current constituents.
This is important because it exposes the needle you have to thread: messaging that makes clear that you're intentionally throwing out the old banks and companies (or their leadership) in order to preserve their prosocial functionality without their antisocial dysfunction. People who are happy to see Goldman Sach burn still want a way to safeguard their money; people who want Mark Zuckerberg to pay the piper don't necessarily want to lose their Instagram galleries or Facebook connections.
The people who run these companies want us to believe that a collapse of the status quo is a total collapse, but it's not. And a government that facilitates transition of ownership and leadership to more capable hands doesn't have to follow the oligarch playbook; different ownership models and transition processes exist.
I'll give an example. Consider people living in a corporation-owned apartment complex. The company collapses - most such corporate landlords collapse - and maybe the bank holding the loan does too. There is no world in which the complex sells at its previous value, and there is probably a temptation to facilitate some transaction, any transaction, that would bring things back to order by designating a concrete owner. Of course, there are people living in the complex, and God knows what happens to them when God knows whoever shows up claiming rights to the units.
Or.
The government steps in. They claim eminent domain and set aside reasonable funds to pay whoever turns out to be the final previous owner. A co-op is formed and ownership is transferred to the current residents as a subsidy; they now own the units they previously rented. Their lives are not disrupted by forced eviction; the municipality is not disrupted by an explosion of homelessness. The main losers are the old owners and banks, and they're bankrupt and dissolved anyway. Life goes on.
I'm not saying that it's an easy transition. Russia showed us how to screw it up. But the successful scenario is a far better outcome for far more people than throwing our hands up, exclaiming that we don't know how to do anything without letting vulture capitalists have their way, and inviting them in to freely carry out the exact scenario (which continues to distort markets and makes the next reckoning all the worse) which is the failure mode of the above proposal anyway.