First the financial sector profession made loans that might not get paid back. Why would they do that? Well because the economy was doing well.
But then later, the economy wasn't doing well anyomre.
Ok. Start over. The economy was doing well. So, more loans were made. On top of those already made. Why not make more? The economy is/was doing well.
Now, today, the economy is not doing well. But there are trillions out in loan dollars. One reason the loans were made was that the economy was doing well (there were other reasons of course, but none of them good ones) So, as for that reason, that reason was snatched out, like a rug from under our feet.
How many loans are there outstanding? Trillions and trillions of dollars' worth.
OK. Next question: What would the solution be?
OK, let;'s just go back to the first premise here. Why would the loaners or financiers make so many loans. Because the economy was doing well, remember?
Investigators have revealed that the lenders are manufacturing money, so that's another point. Themoney is not real. They make it up as loans on the supply end of the money chain. The Fed applies an old bakers' trick (or bankers. Bakers might use it too): they loan monies, prior to collecting money. They do not have the money; but they loan it anyhow. They overlap a bit, I think. The money -- loans -- is not really visible at this junction, is it? So I guess they assume it to be coming back. If I am a lender, I "own" the money I am lending. So, I also "own" the right to simply claim I have money -- if (as in fact the case) that money does not have to be physically represented. That will serve as a summary of this practice.
Now money "should" be pysical. But sometimes is not. Now let's look at the dollar bill, as it was created, and as it was discussed, in language --- historical experience. Why is a dollar bill called a "note"? Why does it say "note" on it? Actually: "Fed. Res. Note."
Again, as in the case of the massive loans, above, there are several reasons. There are several reasons, not simply one. One reason it says that is that it is the nature of language to be a social and cultural and communicative act, the language goes back aways, and at the time they started putting the word "note" on those dollar bills -- Well -- persons in the society were a bit more honest. Does a piece of gold require a word to be stamped in? Does a bar of gold say "note"? No. And neither does a Lady Godiva chocolate bar necessarily say "chocolate" on it. It's pretty obvious what the later two items are. But a dollar does say "note."
Well, this is not a perfectly finished post --- but, it is hard to get to the bottom of these things, isn't it?