> Sure, but the context is that they were doing very poorly and needed liquidity to survive. They received it. That is being bailed out, no?

No, it is not. If they were given free money, or a loan with basically no interest, or some other sweetheart deal, that would be a bailout.

Someone taking advantage of your misfortunate in order to buy you at a discount as not a "bail out".

I see, we're using different definitions. I'm using the Oxford definition of bailout:

- an act of giving financial assistance to a failing business or economy to save it from collapse.

I personally wouldn't consider a zero-interest loan to be a bailout. If I buy a car and receive a no interest loan I wouldn't consider myself to be "bailed out", per your definition; nor would I consider receiving a dollar from a friend for a pack of gum to be a "bailout".

Under that definition, bail outs are a fundamentally great part of capitalism. "Bail outs" in general parlance almost always correspond with government propping up businesses that would otherwise go bankrupt.

indeed - however the different between bailing out your local barber and a bank is that when you bailout a bank the upside is contained, but the downside is spread, whereas with the barber, since barbers don't fundamentally engage in activities that allow for exponential gain the bailout is more directly given to citizens in the form of services, not captured by rich people.