I think some of these problem go deeply into nature and human culture.

For one thing, we are linear, goal oriented creatures in a cyclical, reciprocal, feedback generated reality, so while markets need money to circulate, we see it as the signal to extract and store. Which requires ever more to be added and ever more corrosive ways of storing what has been extracted.

Economics says money is both medium of exchange and store of value, as well as price setting mechanism, but a medium is dynamic, while a store is static. Blood is a medium, fat is a store. Roads are a medium, parking lots are a store. The hallway is a medium, the hall closet is a store. If the average five year old understands the difference, why does economics assume they are interchangeable?

Most money amounts to a contract, with the asset backed by a debt, so to store the asset, sufficient debt has to be generated. One way is to squeeze the flow of money through the regular economy, requiring it to run on debt and pulling that saved money back into circulation. Given the degree banking controls politics, it seems logical there is some conscious effort to domesticate society to the financial sector, than finance a tool for a functioning society.

The other main method of generating debt is having the government as debtor of last resort. It's safe to say the capital markets couldn't function, without governments siphoning up trillions in apparently surplus money. Where would it go otherwise? Derivatives?

The secret sauce of capitalism is that public debt backs private wealth.

I wrote an essay on this;

https://medium.com/dialogue-and-discourse/the-worm-in-the-apple-of-modern-capitalism-a46081000d5a

Though getting anyone with a background in economics interested in this arguement has been fairly futile. I suppose it is not only professional bias, but the profession is largely in service to the ideology of capitalism.

Capitalism is not synonymous with a market based economy. It has turn the tool that enables markets into their god.