> And no, this is not conspiracy, it's pure economics. If everything you’re postulating here is “pure economics”, would you mind placing it in the context of a

> And no, this is not conspiracy, it's pure economics. If everything you’re postulating here is “pure economics”, would you mind placing it in the context of an economic framework for the sake of precision? Something rudimentary like the macro credit-debt cycle is fine. As it stands, your exposition appears fairly politically loaded, and your specific claim that crashes are “manufactured” rather than an emergent side effect of market dynamics is, to me, an extraordinary claim that requires commensurately extraordinary evidence. It’s not at all clear to me how you’re getting from (“there exist people who benefit from systemic market corrections”) to (“market corrections are manufactured by a subset of people who benefit by them”). As another question illustrating this point, would you say that people purchasing homes with overextended mortgages during the housing market bubble were contributing to that crash? If so, did they have a part in “manufacturing” it even though they didn’t benefit? How do you reconcile the ideas of market participants with agency, systemic volatility, and irrational exuberance with the idea of a conspiratorial group capable of systematically driving a market crash?