Simply because you can do something and get away with it, in the short term, doesn't mean that it's the best, or even the right thing to do. At the end of the day, what the fed is doing is, trying to shape the allocation of capital, which is close to what the Soviet Union used to do. Even if the global economy doesn't do very well, you will be compromising meaningful and sustainable growth in the US economy, effectively making the capital allocation extremely inefficient and setting the stage for another crash. Simply because you continue to support certain companies (for example, the Virgin Group) it doesn't mean that they're going to stick around forever. The market for those who want to fly is limited and can only grow or shrink at a certain rate, depending on the economy. So, by supporting such companies, you're trying to create artificial demand that may or may not be sustainable. Statistically speaking, such artificial demand is almost never sustainable. Moreover, the compromise that you're making is letting another good airline company (or potentially even a new better one) tap into additional profits by gaining a few more customers and allocating the capital properly. Additionally, the labour employed by the virgin group would also be put to better use and their services won't end up being useless. This kind of fed intervention has and will almost always lead to stagnation of industries, which isn't a good thing, even if you can get away with it, while maintaining the strength of your currency.
Why the Federal Reserve's massive MMT inspired intervention is bad during COVID-19
Simply because you can do something and get away with it, in the short term, doesn't mean that it's the best, or even the right thing to do. At the end of the day, what the fed is doing is, trying to shape the allocation of capital, which is close to what the Soviet Union used to do. Even if the global economy doesn't do very well, you will be compromising meaningful and sustainable growth in the US economy, effectively making the capital allocation extremely inefficient and setting the stage for another crash. Simply because you continue to support certain companies (for example, the Virgin Group) it doesn't mean that they're going to stick around forever. The market for those who want to fly is limited and can only grow or shrink at a certain rate, depending on the economy. So, by supporting such companies, you're trying to create artificial demand that may or may not be sustainable. Statistically speaking, such artificial demand is almost never sustainable. Moreover, the compromise that you're making is letting another good airline company (or potentially even a new better one) tap into additional profits by gaining a few more customers and allocating the capital properly. Additionally, the labour employed by the virgin group would also be put to better use and their services won't end up being useless. This kind of fed intervention has and will almost always lead to stagnation of industries, which isn't a good thing, even if you can get away with it, while maintaining the strength of your currency.