I think this is a very dangerous sentiment. Incumbents often have an advantage that keeps them alive from foreign companies and leaner tech players.
If you're in a stable, single country then I would agree that letting companies fail is likely the healthiest option. But in a global world, you might find that bailing out companies is a prisoners dilemma. If you let your companies die, but your neighbor doesn't, your neighbor's companies might soon capture your market and cost your community a lot of economic activity in the long term. Or, you let your companies die, and they get replaced by a new, smarter business that employs 10% of the original workforce to get the same amount of work done.
There's upsides to both (perhaps net positive even) but the problems are potentially significant. I think framing the survival of companies as merely a favor to wealthy people's portfolios is naive.
If you're in a stable, single country then I would agree that letting companies fail is likely the healthiest option. But in a global world, you might find that bailing out companies is a prisoners dilemma. If you let your companies die, but your neighbor doesn't, your neighbor's companies might soon capture your market and cost your community a lot of economic activity in the long term. Or, you let your companies die, and they get replaced by a new, smarter business that employs 10% of the original workforce to get the same amount of work done.
There's upsides to both (perhaps net positive even) but the problems are potentially significant. I think framing the survival of companies as merely a favor to wealthy people's portfolios is naive.