> You mention that most people would sell those shares for cash.. well that is cash in their hands then. That is money they didn't have before that they now have, that they can then spend on goods and services correct?

Because if sold quickly, it will crash the price of shares. So instead of a share being worth $3000 like it is now, it could cause a short term event where the people that need cash the most would only be able to get $100 for a share, which will get swooped by people who have disposable income to blow on investments.

It would just re-consolidate the wealth in the hands of wealthy people.

Sure, that's probably somewhat better than having it in the hands of 1 person, e.g Bezos, but is it better than other alternatives? Like just giving people stimulus checks in cash?