I'm not sure I'd go that far. I think if there is a major, near-unforseeable danger that where public policy requires shutting down business, then I think Bylund has a fair point that it shouldn't be treated as "sucks to be you" entrepreneurial error.
But I also think there's a lot more gray area. What if you were exploiting the fact that something was illegal but not enforced? That doesn't seem to merit a bailout.
What if you were running on extremely tight margins so that a week of lost revenue for any reason, even a justified one like a pandemic, would shut you down? Again, doesn't seem to merit a bailout.
But I also think there's a lot more gray area. What if you were exploiting the fact that something was illegal but not enforced? That doesn't seem to merit a bailout.
What if you were running on extremely tight margins so that a week of lost revenue for any reason, even a justified one like a pandemic, would shut you down? Again, doesn't seem to merit a bailout.