Unfortunately, under currently dominant monetary regimes, such outcomes are entirely predictable and inevitable.<p>Edit: Ok, I had a nice reply to someone, but then their comment was deleted, meaning my comment had nowhere to go.<p>I&#x27;ll put it below.<p>---<p>&gt;[Deleted Comment] Unfortunately without further information on your part is hard to know if you have deep insights, carefully thought out, or it is just a naive cynic comment like those that abound all over the internet.<p>It is a fair point. Unfortunately, any given text posted on the Internet is unlikely to be read much or given much credence by the few that do read it. Therefore, I try not to waste my time expositing large amounts of English text.<p>I don&#x27;t know if I have deep insights. I do know that most seem to have no idea of the basic mechanism of the dominant monetary regimes and that such a mechanism easily explains many of the &quot;bad things&quot; which occur in the economy. For example, it&#x27;s just a fact that debt must rise (assuming non-decreasing population and many other &quot;standard assumptions&quot;).<p>&gt;it&#x27;s probably best if everyone buries themselves as far into debt as they can<p>This is basically the only possibility, except that the debt isn&#x27;t forced to be spread uniformly. Instead, debt accumulates in regions. The steady state is basically: banks hold interest stakes in all debt, perpetually. Banks survive, while everyone else must deal with the wake forced on them by the massive amount of debt product which the banks produce.