Isn't the core issue that this deluge of spending on the hype inflates away adjacent companies valuation (Meta, Google, Tesla, Nvidia, etc.) where people's pensions and savings get directed towards since they become the growth stocks in the index, and when it inevitably corrects there's second/third-order effects on non-rich people?
> They would just as likely hoover up housing around the country or some such insanity to capitalize on the scarcity.
Another core issue in a hyper-financialised economy, the money doesn't get invested in what would be best for society, it keeps chasing either risky endeavours or parked in presumed safe assets (such as housing), inflating away asset classes. Where are the incentives to invest in foundational areas which do compound to make a society have resilient growth, like infrastructure: energy, transportation, etc.? It feels like without government direction to spend in big projects there's simply no appetite from the private, hyper-financialised, system to do the work, unless there's potential to get 10-100x returns. Is that good for society at large?
If hyper-financialisation is not helping the overall economy, and society to become better, why the hell should we still (in the Western world) pursue that? If all it can do is increasingly chase the extremes: hyper-growth vs extremely safe assets, is it any good anymore?