Let's play devil's advocate (for lack of better word) here:
Such bailout would be paid by the taxpayer.
On the other hand, I suppose that if there is no bailout, many, if not most restaurants will go bankrupt. However I'm sure they have already laid off their staff so the impact on employment will be small.
Thus, all in all, is it really worth bailing then out? People will reopen new restaurants after this mess and it will be cheap to do so if equipment and premises are plentiful.
It seems that a bailout would really help the banks, which are set to face a mountain of bad debts if whole industries start to fold...
Such bailout would be paid by the taxpayer.
On the other hand, I suppose that if there is no bailout, many, if not most restaurants will go bankrupt. However I'm sure they have already laid off their staff so the impact on employment will be small.
Thus, all in all, is it really worth bailing then out? People will reopen new restaurants after this mess and it will be cheap to do so if equipment and premises are plentiful.
It seems that a bailout would really help the banks, which are set to face a mountain of bad debts if whole industries start to fold...