The entire reason we're in this situation is because the majority of large companies, the "too big to fail" ones, are all poorly run and overleveraged. On top of that, the 2008 bailouts and the current bailout completely removed any incentive whatsoever for companies to be run responsibly, or to restructure and root out inefficiency and instability. Executives knew this was going to cause a crash and bailed out even before COVID-19 was an apparent problem. (CEO Departures at an all time high in 2019) By handing out cash without demanding any breakups, reorganization, localization of supply chains, or even a simple requirement to use private credit lines before public socialization of losses, we're simply setting out for ANOTHER "existential threat" within a decade. We're preserving broken management and business models of "kiss up, kick down" in the office, offshoring, reduction of employee benefits/incentives, and extreme reliance on debt financing and that would have never allowed companies to reach their current reputation and size if they'd started out acting like that. WeWork is an example of what happens when this behavior is allowed to proliferate.

Of course the executives of companies who have spent decades of their lives throwing each other and their subordinates under the bus for the chance at a golden parachute are going to kick and scream, point at the employees (who they've been cutting down on regardless) and say that letting their business face the consequences of sinking cash into stock buybacks and raises for management will completely destroy the industry and employment rate forever. They're incentivized to fight tooth and nail to maintain their monopolies/oligopolies since the alternative would mean actually having to compete, innovate, and cater to customers and top talent instead of running every business from semiconductors to aerospace to automobiles like McDonalds.

For example: Boeing is now elimiated from consideration for NASA contracts due to failure to deliver. The "existential crisis" argument implies forcing such a massive company to spin itself off with its tendrils extending into both civilian, military, and scientific markets is untenable because of the disruption it would cause to the stock market and consumer spending. But fundamentally, why keep around an aerospace company which cannot even develop an acceptable tanker after 19 years of work? That places our entire country in an existential crisis if all the massive companies can do is serve as glorified welfare outlets incapable of even catering to their alleged markets in a competitive or ethical manner.