>There is definitely an unsound premise here - the market hasn't marked down public companies as if they are generally unsound...yet. All the "crash" so far has done is take us back to the levels of 3-4 years ago.

Yes, because maybe it hasn't accepted the gravity of what's going to happen to their ability to deliver value, or anticipates free money.

>Your point about buying bonds not changing "fundamental soundness" is like saying keeping someone from dying of an acute condition doesn't cure their illness. It still keeps them from dying right now! What is the advantage of causing a preventable catastrophe, just because everything eventually ends?

My point was that if they're not actually sound, then buying the bonds doesn't change that; it's just doing that weekend-at-bernie's thing. To the extent that the business can't deliver value, markets depend on such businesses shutting down, and subsidizing their bonds only delays.

Now, you'd be right that, if there's something fixable about them with collective action, then we should do that thing. But that would still obviate the need to subsidize their bonds, because it would revitalize market interest in them!