Trump first.
He has lived in New York longer than AOC has been alive. He has the resources to effect positive change there, but did nothing in the way of public service and instead cheated on his taxes and charities, running pyramid schemes, hiring and underpaying undocumented immigrants, repeatedly taking from those who could ill afford it to line his own pockets for decades. Trump had a significant hand in making New York the shit hole city it is today, and has done nothing whatsoever to fix it, he's worked to make things worse as president too, because New York didn't vote for him, just like his multiple (failed) attempts to hurt California and our economy out of spite.

AOC, after graduating Cum Laude (Trump has gone to great lengths to hide his embarrassing transcript), had the resources of a bartender trying to save her mother from foreclosure, yet she launched Brook Avenue Press, a publishing firm for books that portray the Bronx in a positive light, and worked as lead educational strategist at GAGEis, Inc. Ocasio-Cortez also worked for the nonprofit National Hispanic Institute, serving as the Educational Director of the 2017 Northeast Collegiate World Series, a five-day-long program targeted at college-bound high school students from across the United States and other countries, where she also participated in the panel on the future of Latino leadership.

In her few years as an adult with minimal resources, AOC has done infinitely more than Trump, with all his inherited advantages, to fix their city.

*facepalm

The cultural obsession in the 50s and 60s (Dead of the Dead) is now often interpreted to have been a way of playing out the mass psyche's anxieties around communism---and about being coming the "organizational" man.

Not sure what it is now; a statement about suicidal terrorists who, to mass appreciation, seem just as senseless and confusing as an assault by zombies? A larger statement about the foreclosure of a sense of opportunity (doom and apocalypse) by the chief audience for movies, teens and 20-something year olds based on the new, new normal of a zombie economy?

Not sure myself. It will probably be blinding apparent with 20/20 hindsight in 20 more years....

Yeah iirc I heard something once that the reason why home ownership was always promoted as part of the 'American Dream' was to get people into debt.
And really, for the first 30 years or so you are still basically a renter, only a renter with more responsibility; don't even get me started on zombie mortgages, those things are just diabolical.
http://videosift.com/video/Zombie-Titles-More-Horrifying-Than-Home-Foreclosure

*sniff* I smell corruption.

They want you to believe they know WTF they are doing. When it doesn't look right, they just blame the "uninformed" for what ends up happening.

Much like everyone keeps saying that huge housing bubble that happened falls at the feet of the people taking the loans for over a decade.....not the people who were lying about everything throughout the process and kept doing shady shit up until the house of cards collapsed. And now keep fucking up foreclosures in a myriad of ways.........


Those poor pitiful victims, those corporations......it's sad how all of the outrageous BS they keep trying to force into existence comes back to fuck everyone in the end. It's just a few make a whole shitload of money off it in the meantime.

Some sort of spending policy was needed, but the bailout as it was put forth was pretty dismal in it's results. The companies that received it were the ones who created the mess for the most part (banks), and we really still haven't addressed punishing them OR putting laws in place to either:
A) Punish them if it happens again, really the laws now should be sufficient.
B) Make it impossible to happen again....all those acts, they repealed over the last 20-30 years.
C) Prevent some of the more insanity driven investing, such as over abundant speculation and similar cost creating but non-value creating (Call it a Private Tax, if you will) things.

Really the more I look back on the bailout, and look at the attitudes of most of the politicians at that time...they were saying let the auto industry fail. But the bailouts to the auto industries have at least halfway been paid back. Chrysler is likely going to short the government 1.3 billion last I read. GM gave the government stock and 22 billion. Stock is worth about 13.5 billion. They borrowed 50 billion. So 28 billion is what we have to get out of that stock to recover fully. And as far as I know there is no interest accumulated, so losing money in those deals is a kick to the crotch considering.

I think the auto industries might have been able to enter bankruptcy and come back out of it with some lessons learned. But vehicles like the "Volt" show that......they don't really know who they are selling to. Chrysler ended up being taken over by Fiat. And Ford handled it's own business. The one in the worst shape was GM, and I can't say that they probably didn't have it coming. And they still ended up pretty much killing the economy dead in my area despite the bailout when they shut their plants down that they really hadn't "kept up" in DECADES...place was really dumpy looking. No one would take it over because it was just utter trash when they left. I'm more against than for the bailout of the auto industries, but I can see that they were probably beneficial there although GM seemingly learned nothing of note from it.

Banks on the other hand......they took in 1.2 trillion. And a bunch of the borrowed money went to European firms. Along with other financial institutions. And many kept taking loans into 2010.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/that_federal_bank_bailout_in_2008_was_bigger_than_we_knew_a_lot_bigger.html

Has lots of info on it. I haven't taken the time to confirm every last portion of it, but we know the bailout/loans of 2008 that were announced ended up being MUCH larger than they told us. So the information is kind of hit and miss since they kept it hush hush for awhile.

But, the money was to help keep the banks off people's backs about foreclosures. It hasn't, in fact they took the money and foreclosed anyway to get both the cash to make it possible to allow the person to keep the house AND the house. That should be criminal.

The bailout of those institutions probably did stop a economic meltdown, but I think that bailout still should be criticized. The people who caused it suffered no punishment by law, financially, or by failure. And they have been fighting have regulations and such put in place to stop it from happening again and from practices like speculation being allowed in such quantities. It's affecting the oil prices and they are using it as a argument for "foreign oil" ALL the time.

Sure the bailout saved us from financial meltdown, but we aren't safe from it happening again. In fact we're probably even more precariously perched at the edge than we were before, and people are making money off that instability. If they could have made money during the total collapse, I don't think they would have gotten bailout to all those institutions.

So, we should criticize the bailout, simply because it has made it possible for the people who control the money to continue making money, and no one has corrected the conditions that caused the collapse in the first place. The people who caused it keep on keeping on, the politicians get some money stuffed in their pockets, and the people who got hurt most by the crash whether you lost your house, job, savings, pension, etc are just lined up to be knocked down again and no one is trying to fix it. The people who had money to weather the crash, are recovering and the people who didn't are still hurt by the crash they had no way of avoiding.

Too big to fail institutions are still too big to fail. Now they know that they can leech all the money from the government whenever they start to lean a little as a collective. Nothing was learned by anyone there, because nothing ended up happening to them besides some bad press...when they should have gotten a major investigation that was more like a full cavity search to determine wrongdoing.

Congress does not have a century of a generally poor track record. The US has been the most prosperous country in the history of the planet the last century, and it's not even close. And much of what has made the US so economically prosperous had a lot to do with gov't decisions on where to spend money such as creation of the Fed, FDIC, etc., funding the industrial/military complex which led to things like NASA, computers, the internet; federal grants, scholarships, and funding for public universities; nuclear technologies that led to things from nuclear reactors to home microwaves, electrification with programs like the TVA and the Hoover Dam which developed entire regions economically, medical funding, I could go on and on and on.



Private citizens are responsible for quite a number of things you've mentioned, and their success.

but it's lunacy to say federal gov't spending didn't play a major role



Agreed. Why did you say that? No one is arguing that point. Government revenue should be spent on these things. My argument is about who is making those decisions and if they can be better made by those who experience these things firsthand.

Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making?



Yep. Personal savings has been bad only for the past decade or so. Economic growth in the US is primarily driven by consumer demand.

So let's talk about those million voters. Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making. With all the talk about how banks screwed consumers in mortgages, who were the idiots who agreed to said mortgages? Way too many Americans, even during the boom, were a paycheck or two away from being broke, had virtually no savings, overpaid for houses, weren't investing/saving for retirement, etc. I'm sorry, but the general public, including voters, are god awful at handling money. Even some people who are generally financially responsible are this way because of hardline rules they refuse to break like never using credit to buy anything other than a house or MAYBE a car. Can you imagine how many businesses would exist if loans weren't taken out to start them? Such people have no idea how to be entrepreneurial and borrow money to increase productivity.



Now you're just making gross generalizations. You've given good examples of how government funded programs in the last century helped lead to economic prosperity, but cited one poor example within the last 5 years of how a minority (yes. minority) of the population made bad financial decisions. By that logic, *my* money management is bad because of someone in Nevada bought a house and couldn't afford it.

I know you're upset at my tiny, detailless post, but I think it's you who needs to get perspective before so obviously jumping the gun.

Everyone, including the president, says that "we have to work together blah blah" but time and time again it does not happen. Then comes the proof that lobbyists pay congressmen to speak on their industry's behalf, completely undermining the voters who placed them in office in the first place.

As a result of narrow mindedness and rigidity, the US is performing average in reading and science, and below average in math. College tuition is rising much faster than home prices. Gas is higher. Food is less quantity but more expensive. Healthcare costs are exhorbitant. Social security is dying a slow death thanks to Reagan. Medicare is always on the chopping block because it's costs are absurd. Unions are losing their rights. Meanwhile, the military industrial complex is doing very well, and corporate entities have cleaned up their books and are in the best financial position in decades *but refuse to hire people*.

You can have your opinions on why things are the way they are; republicans do this, democrats do that. The president did this, Bush did that. None of that matters because NOW..NOW you're unemployed,and/or your house is in foreclosure, and/or your kids won't be able to goto college because it's too expensive. And those jobs that were lost during the crisis? They're gone. They are not coming back. It's a mathematical reality.

Let's do some numbers now.

US tax revenue: 2.3 trillion
Currently 535 people in position to control budgetting = 4.3 billion worth of financial leverage each.
130 million people = popular vote in 2008 election
So hypothetically, if voters controlled federal budgets, each voter would have ~17500$ worth of financial leverage.

Every year, each person elects where they think all US revenue should be allocated. This, in essence, gives each voting citizen of the united states direct control of the united states federal budget. Also, each state could give their population voting control of their state budgets. For those people who elect to not make their allocations, either congress and state congress will allocate for them as usual, or the leverage they had is transferred into the remaining pool.

Why do this?

1. Because the people, the majority, know best. Congress by nature of their numbers is incapable of providing the best decisions because this country is a huge melting pot of cultures. Each state has different problems and different benefits, and the local citizens deal with them firsthand everyday. The representative system of governance worked a century ago because the population was a fraction of what it is today.

2. The entire us lobbying institution would literally collapse overnight. Lobbyists exist to manipulate congress into moving money into their direction. Since the budgeting decision has been given to millions instead of a couple, money spent lobbying is rendered ineffective to produce their desired outcome.

3. No more blame game since you now have a piece of how the pie gets sliced. Do you support the military? Allocate money to military spending. Support stem cell research? Allocate money to science and R&D. Want to get off foreign oil? Allocate the money to alternative energy sources. Worried about social security? Allocate more to the fund. Worried about our country's ability to compete? Allocate the distribution to education. Worried about debt? Pay it down. People always hate the government because of the financial decisions they make. Not anymore.

4. The internet can be the primary vehicle of how people cast their tax allocation and educate themselves on this important decision. For those who do not have access, they can cast their allocation at designated locations such as their local library or post office.

5. There are times when emergency funds are needed for disasters; Economic, weather, unforeseen events. Congress shall have control over that as time is of the essence. But if the money exceeds a set amount, the voting power shall be delegated to the people (for example, bank bailouts).

Look, it's just an idea and it doesn't deserve to be insulted. But if you feel better, then GO FOR IT! I'd like constructive feedback though.

>> ^rougy:

Oh, yeah, joking around and saying that some girl in a video looks hot is exactly the same as robosigning foreclosures and laughing at the people you helped evict.
Right.


I never claimed the two were equivalent, or even close in offensiveness. I do think its moronic to say something so stupid in the middle of a piece about the atrocious behaviors of a law firm. Not only is it insensitive to suddenly objectify two women in the middle of a conversation that had no bearing on the attractiveness of people, but to interrupt the conversation with something so banal gives the impression he doesn't really give a shit about what they're talking about.

Hopefully Baum loses some business over this, but unfortunately I don't see it hurting him in the long run. I understand he was fined $2 million for the actual acts of fraud, so I guess that's something...

>> ^Crosswords:

Lets start off a video about inappropriate behavior with a little inappropriate behavior of their own. OMG THOSE GIRLS ARE HAWT, oh what? yeah bad law-firm for being insensitive.


Yeah that guy sounded like a complete idiot and he had nothing to add to the conversation.

This is fucking despicable though. The Daily Show had it best when everyone was whining about how Bankers and Moneyed individuals were getting picked on. We've seen this shit, Enron laughing about peoples homes burning down cause they'd get money for it. These lawyer bastards...it's been done and we're sick of it.

We haven't even begun to pick on you yet.

Oh, yeah, joking around and saying that some girl in a video looks hot is exactly the same as robosigning foreclosures and laughing at the people you helped evict.

Right.

According to this, HARP helps people with a loan to value of over 80%. This means if somebody's house goes down in value, your loan-to-value will actually increase (mortgage/appraised worth of home). Cenk is saying HARP does the opposite of that. Either I'm confused or he is confused.>> ^NetRunner:

And for those who want to read the actual text of the announcement from the FHFA on this change, here you go.
I'm not a lawyer, but I have been reading a lot of this kind of stuff lately (because I'm underwater on my mortgage now too!), and all they're really doing is widening the pool of people who they're going to allow to do refinances by letting people who are less screwed participate.
Here's their response to the "moral hazard" argument I alluded to in my earlier comment:

Are you concerned that eliminating seller and servicer representations and warrants on HARP loans will force the Enterprises to take on additional risk?
We anticipate that the package of improvements being made to HARP will reduce the Enterprises credit risk, bring greater stability to mortgage markets and reduce foreclosure risks – each of which is an important statutory mandate for FHFA.
Nearly all HARP-eligible borrowers have been paying their mortgages for more than three years, and most of those for four or more years. These are seasoned loans made to borrowers who have demonstrated a capacity and commitment to make good on their mortgage obligation through a period of severe economic stress and house price declines.
Reps and warrants protect the Enterprises from losses on defective loans; typically, such defects show up in the first few years of a mortgage and so the value of the reps and warrants decline over time. By refinancing into a lower interest rate and/or shorter term mortgage, these borrowers are recommitting to their mortgage and strengthening their household balance sheet, thereby reducing the credit risk they already pose to the Enterprises. Therefore, FHFA has concluded that eliminating the reps and warrants that may have discouraged industry participants from taking greater advantage of HARP to-date will be good for borrowers, housing markets, and the Enterprises and taxpayers.

And for those who want to read the actual text of the announcement from the FHFA on this change, here you go.

I'm not a lawyer, but I have been reading a lot of this kind of stuff lately (because I'm underwater on my mortgage now too!), and all they're really doing is widening the pool of people who they're going to allow to do refinances by letting people who are less screwed participate.

Here's their response to the "moral hazard" argument I alluded to in my earlier comment:

Are you concerned that eliminating seller and servicer representations and warrants on HARP loans will force the Enterprises to take on additional risk?

We anticipate that the package of improvements being made to HARP will reduce the Enterprises credit risk, bring greater stability to mortgage markets and reduce foreclosure risks – each of which is an important statutory mandate for FHFA.
Nearly all HARP-eligible borrowers have been paying their mortgages for more than three years, and most of those for four or more years. These are seasoned loans made to borrowers who have demonstrated a capacity and commitment to make good on their mortgage obligation through a period of severe economic stress and house price declines.

Reps and warrants protect the Enterprises from losses on defective loans; typically, such defects show up in the first few years of a mortgage and so the value of the reps and warrants decline over time. By refinancing into a lower interest rate and/or shorter term mortgage, these borrowers are recommitting to their mortgage and strengthening their household balance sheet, thereby reducing the credit risk they already pose to the Enterprises. Therefore, FHFA has concluded that eliminating the reps and warrants that may have discouraged industry participants from taking greater advantage of HARP to-date will be good for borrowers, housing markets, and the Enterprises and taxpayers.

QM,
There is no need to put labels on these people. Labels are a sign of weakness in any argument. The OWS have repeatedly stated that they are not affiliated with any party. They are mad at the current state of our government; they are not promoting a political agenda - I didn't see a single banner promoting somebody's name on it. I think you, and many others, keep missing the fundamental point that these people are attacking lobbyism and backroom deals that happen in Washington - most of which are triggered by the oil industry, big pharma, and the financial sector. The focal point of their day-to-day transactions is indeed Wall St.

Why not Washington you say? People are mad at the economy (outsourced jobs, bailouts, foreclosures) and the pulse of our economy is measured in Wall St. Why is this a surprise? The medial keeps trying to funnel the OWS people into a political agenda, which in fact, is non-existent. As LaGreca stated so eloquently, this is a "general assembly vs. top-heavy town hall" issue; I think people from all parts of the political should agree with that, regardless of their affiliation. The assumption that people are going to come with a list of demands is based on the fact that this is a political movement with a leadership. Many people at OWS have different conflicting concerns, and there is nothing wrong with that. That's how democracy works. One thing they all agree on is that change is needed (and by change I don't mean replace President A with President B).

I know you are going to attack Obama and Liberals (I despise Obama btw), but you have to understand that this collapsed economy was created by Bush and happened on his watch - the house has been under republican control for quite some time now and the senate has 13 centrist democrats that lean toward republican ideology and vote against their own party consistently. You just can't blame one man or one party. The whole system is rigged. When it comes to the economic policies, it's not who's playing the game that's the problem, it's the rules of the game itself.

So in short, QM, I think you're not always wrong as I tend to agree with some of your posts, but you're not always right either. Neither am I. The truth is somewhere in between.

As my old English teacher used to say, the best argument is the one that sits on the fence...

>> ^quantumushroom:

Ah, I see what you attempted, so let me elaborate.
The average oh-so-lovable working class stiff is chock-full of wrongful assumptions about business, law and government, but he's still forgotten more than will ever be known by the self-anointed liberal intelligentsia, whose theories and follies he pays for every day.
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^quantumushroom:
The average oh-so-lovable working class stiff is chock-full of wrongful assumptions about business, law and government.
Tell me about it.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Now now, I believe there are many lefty voices who STILL accuse the Tea party of being Fox/Murdoch-sponsored.
Say what you will about Cain, but he's right on this: what do these people want? What do they want to achieve?
Sorry to poop in the punch bowl, but if you take any of these hippies and swap them with the guys in the skyscraper, they'll act exactly the same way and do the same exact things as the originals.

>> ^Sagemind:
This idiot thinks these protesters are organized as a scheme by a political party? - These protesters are a spontaneous uprising. They aren't uprising because they are jealous, they are protesting because they and the public were and are being shafted over and over by the elite wealthy without concern for those they step on.



As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.
They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts. *

To the people of the world,

We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

Join us and make your voices heard!

*These grievances are not all-inclusive.

http://nycga.cc/2011/09/30/declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/

@NetRunner

I think the difference in our concept of what's going on is that my understanding is that commercial banks can make a reserve deposit at any Fed branch and then make loans against that. From what I can tell, there isn't any math done like you're describing. Maybe if you want to make a new bank or long ago when some of these banks were created there was math like that, but there isn't anymore. There is simply a minimum number required to have on reserve deposit or in vault cash compared to how much you have loaned out. This is all not to mention that there are types of deposits which have exceptions to the reserve requirement. That alone makes sure banks are loaning more than they have (if they want to take the increased risk).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement#United_States

I mean, if putting $100 in a Fed reserve bank and loaning out $900 based on someone's promise to pay isn't creating money, I don't know what is. You don't have to start out with $1000 to make the $900 loan once you're already a commercial bank. That's the point. If you make money on some investment, you can make loans and collect interest against your increased profits. You don't have to have the money and then hold 10% back. (Glass-Steagall, anyone?)

Plus, the money that comes in as interest is money that never existed in the money supply before the loan was created. Someone else has to borrow money to pay you in order for you to be able to pay your interest. This is why growth is required to pay interest and avoid foreclosure and default. If the money supply does not increase and more people aren't promising to pay interest, other people won't be able to fulfill their promises to repay. That's why the system requires growth to function well.

Legal tender law and fiat currency make sure that everyone must participate in the system at some point, or your contracts won't be protected by the courts and you won't be able to pay your taxes, since both only deal in dollars.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^mgittle:
The problem with fractional reserve systems using fiat currency is their reliance on growth.
I haven't watched the documentary you linked, but the only part of what you said I'd really contest is this part.
How is fiat currency reliant on growth?
Perhaps you meant it the other way around -- that fiat currency is just one more tool that's used to cajole the human race into participating in this "growth" whose value has become increasingly dubious?
That's how I see it, at least on the days when I see the face and not the vase. Most days I still see markets and capitalism as a positive net influence on the welfare of the human race, but their most fervent advocates sure do work hard at making me think otherwise.


Yeah, well put rearding the "fervent advocates". I did kind of mean it the other way around. Thank you for actually taking a second to understand my meaning rather than arguing literal points only (the literal-only thing being my definition for nerdiness).

It's not fiat currency alone that makes our economy reliant on growth. I should have been more specific, but such is life when you have to get to sleep...haha. Fiat currency just a part of the whole Fractional Reserve banking + legal tender law + fiat currency system. In my mind, the growth thing is probably tied most to the fractional reserve system. Hopefully none of this sounds condescending because I'm not sure how much of this you already know, but here's my understanding:

Because the money supply is variable and dependent on debt, an expanding economy is extremely good and a contracting one is extremely bad. Because banks are allowed to loan more money than they possess *and* charge interest, you run into a problem. Where do individuals get the money needed to pay the interest on their loan if it was created from nothing? You have to get it from the overall money supply, which is made up of money created by banks from other peoples' promises to pay.

Thus, with every new credit card swipe, mortgage signing, etc, more money is owed to banks than actually exists at any given time. It's only the time lag between borrowing and repayment that keeps the entire system from collapsing. This means that unless the total amount of debt continually increases at a sufficient rate, it's impossible for everyone to succeed in paying back their loans...there must be foreclosures. This is why people constantly get offers of new credit, *and* why recessions are such a bitch. It's very hard to get things growing again after the money supply decreases.

The system is also one in which individuals paying off debts have more money (less income goes to paying interest), but everyone paying off their debts leaves society with no money. Therefore, anyone who pays off their debt to increase their own personal financial security actually hurts the overall economy. It makes no sense for markets to rely on rational individuals' decisions if their individual decisions are bad for the economy in aggregate. For this reason alone, the system is extremely fragile.

Hope all that makes some sort of sense. Maybe I'm wrong in parts. I'm partially regurgitating the videos I linked earlier while adding in stuff I've learned from other sources. I've nor heard anyone refute the premise of the video, but I'm sure it's not infallible in its interpretation. I'd love to hear what other people think. It got sifted long ago but there was little discussion.

As for your comments about markets being a net positive, I don't disagree with you at all. It's when people rely on markets to solve every problem (including moral ones) and don't realize that there are some places markets ought not go that there becomes a problem. (Should courts enforce a custody contract between an infertile couple and a surrogate mother? ...and and endless list of other similar questions)