There are two ways to deal with a problem. Either patch it and move on, or go back and figure out what is causing it.
The assumption is that capitalism is synonymous with a market economy, but that isn't really true.
People are linear, goal seeking creatures in a cyclical, circular, reciprocal, feedback generated reality. So while markets need money to circulate, people tend to see it as signal, to extract and store. Requiring ever more to be added and ever more metastatic methods of storing what has been extracted.
It is a social contract, essentially an accounting device, that enables mass societies to function, but it is viewed as a commodity to mine from society.
Given it is a contract, where the asset is backed by a debt, storing the asset requires generating similar amounts of debt.
One way is to squeeze money flowing through the regular economy, causing it to run on debt. Which creates a centripetal effect, as positive feedback draws the asset to the center, while negative feedback pushes the debt to the edges.
Given finance and money function as the value distribution system of society, this is analogous to the heart telling the hands and feet they don't need so much blood and should work harder for what they do get.
The Ancients devised debt jubilees to reset this process, but the modern world is riding several hundred years of economic growth.
The other primary method is having the government as debtor of last resort. It should be pretty obvious, but remains ignored, that the capital markets could not function, without the government siphoning up trillions in surplus investment money.
Which might explain why we can have endless, strategically inept wars and the same people remain in charge. The wars are just a burn pit, so more money can be borrowed.
Econ 101 says money is both medium of exchange and store of value, 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 functionality of money is in its fungibility. It is a public utility, like roads. We own it like we own the section of road we are using, or the air and water flowing through our bodies.
It's not our picture on it, we don't hold the copyrights and are not personally responsible for maintaining its value.
There isn't the investment potential to save the amounts of notational value we think necessary, but we all do save for many of the same reasons, so the concept of the public commons will have to eventually be resurrected.
The irony of our individualistic ethos is the resulting atomized society is more easily domesticated by its managers.
There was a time when government, as the executive and regulatory function of society, aka, the central nervous system, was private. Now the banks are having their, "Let them eat cake." moment.
