Outside of this particular political context, do you recognize the logic of Scott’s point? That most notional wealth is a contract, with one side an asset and the other a debt, so that in order for there to be significant notational assets, there have to be similar amounts of debt.

Do you think the capital markets could function, without the Federal government, among others, soaking up trillions in otherwise surplus capital? Where would it go, otherwise? Derivatives? Apple stock?

The problem is that reality is inherently cyclical and feedback driven, while people are linear and goal oriented. So while markets need money to circulate, people treat it as the signal to extract from the noise of the economy. Which requires ever more to be added and ever more ways to store what has been extracted.

The punch bowl doesn’t get taken away when the party gets going, just more vodka poured in when it runs low.

Consider that the deficit really began with the New Deal, so not only was Roosevelt putting unemployed labor back to work, but unemployed capital, as well. “Saving capitalism from itself.” had a deeper meaning.

Given how much gets poured into the military, it might explain how we can have endless, strategically incompetent wars and no one is held accountable, if their real function is to spend the money, in order that more can be borrowed.

Maybe this doesn’t resonate with you, but eventually this country will not be able to issue more debt at interest rates it can afford. Then what happens?

When the markets do it to third world countries, or poor people, then forecloses on their assets, it is called disaster capitalism, or predatory lending.

If you think this can’t happen to this country, you have your hands over your eyes.

Frankly socialism is just the loyal opposition to capitalism, as it is a distraction from what is actually going on.