I'm not sure I get this? This seems to be "Governments control outsized amounts of cash and make bad decisions, for which well financed private markets exploit their bad positions sucking at the tax money and eventually a crisis occurs ending the situation till another political arbitrage occurs."
it's just that a lot of the crises listed are to me less "political corruption and collusion with financiers and more the road to hell being paved with good intentions. ending political corruption is feasible, ending good intentions?
Try something like "Government has outsized power to change economical outcomes, and punishes sustainable decisions hard, making any rational person choose the viable unsustainable ones. People that make unsustainable decisions (everybody still in the game, as the government destroyed everybody else) can't sustain themselves for long, and routinely face deep crisis". I guess that's a bit longer, but more clear.
Things would be less bad if just one unlucky event in a crisis wasn't enough to destroy the entire life of somebody, but it is, so we must play russian roulette every few years.
Anyway, I'm quite sure reducing the government intervention will replace this problem with something worse (that we can check on history books), thus the solution has to come from some other kind of change.
Wow, I'm not really sure what to say to that unless you mean that you can end political corruption by destroying the power base of government so that taking advantage of government doesn't mean much.
My Homeowners' Association doesn't really have any significant corruption, but that's really just because they don't have much power or money to control.
Whenever you concentrate large amounts of power, you will have corruption. That is as axiomatic as any part of life on Earth.
it's just that a lot of the crises listed are to me less "political corruption and collusion with financiers and more the road to hell being paved with good intentions. ending political corruption is feasible, ending good intentions?