Did it occur to you that it is entirely possible that the size of the world economy is built on sand that is not sustainable?  If you have an entire economy starting off with malinvestment, which then is coupled with malproduction and malconsumption, all that mal will not be sustainable, and is bound to fall.

Then, thrown in all sorts of interconnections in the banking system and consolidation, where the banking industry consists of fewer and fewer banks, and when they freeze up, the economy goes down with it.

And I am fully aware of how much derivatives there are out there.  Talk of over $600 trillion totally flowing about, with the amount of paper wealth out there increasing ever more over actual physical assets.  

The problem with the assumptions behind derivatives is that, people presume they can make themselves have it so their entire system can't ever come crashing down, and their returns are assured.  The problem here, as in examples I have listed prior, is that it isn't the case, as was seen with the hedge fund that presumed that governments never defaulted, and the leveraged to the hilt off it, to the inane belief that housing prices could always rise to a rate multiple times higher than inflation.  People leverage to the hilt off it, and assume nothing bad can happen.  In fact, it does.  Whether it is government pushing the markets one way with meddling, or a black swan, such happens.

Here is Warren Buffett on derivatives and the housing bubble:

Back in 2003 he called derivatives "Weapons of Mass Destruction":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2817995.stm

If you hold that view, then why do you complain about the state of society and companies not rehiring, when the reality according to you is, things should be MUCH worse.

Why complain about what some derivatives have done so far, when we're still ahead of the game?

When stupid misuse of derivatives were a big factor in what happened with the economy, complete with the production of an unsustainable bubble, then it gets brought up.  You are the one who ended up saying, "Well if the government had no part in it, we wouldn't of had a problem".  Well, it wasn't the government that pushed things over the edge, but greed on the part of individuals to take too large of a risk.  Beyond this, the key is to look at what really could lead to sustainable job creation, not creating another bubble that will lead to excess economic activity that is not sustainable.  Besides this, name what area should be the target of real economic growth now to produce the needed jobs over the next 5 years.

The government played a massive role in the creation of the crisis ...

Starting decades before the housing bubble burst, the government has been pushing banks to loosen lending standards to increase home ownership in poor minority groups through a variety of means; including legislation, litigation, and buying these undesireable mortagages through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. To minimize their exposure to these very low quality "assets" the banks created new derivatives and exotic mortgages.

Realistically, if it wasn't for government action people would probably still need 10% to 25% as a down payment, an excellent credit score, low debt, and a stable job to get a mortgage with a 25 year amortization period that could account for no more than 40% of their take home pay.

I have no answer's,but it seems like the govment doesn't either.

Except the government were the people who pushed things over the edge... and was what made real growth a bubble, by forcing too many bad loans that HAD to be put into derivatives in the first place.

What should the the target of real economic growth?

Nothing.  When you target things you are specifically creating jobs that do not have demand... which would be... creating a bubble.

Instead, you let people get used to the reality of the economy, and start buying, drawing demand up, and allow buisness owners and other people to innovate and invent and create new products people creating more demand by creating more products people want to buy.

Generally though you missed my point.  Basically every thread you create is complaining about how crappy the world, job situation and economy is.  When under your view that the vast majority of derivitives are bad... the economy and job situation are worse, heck social programs should be worse.  There seems to be a huge conflict in your base ideology where you suggest things should be better, but general phiosphy suggests things should be MUCH worse.

Can you name a single bubble historically that a government wasn't the main culprit for, and who drove individuals to do things (by force of law) to engage in risky practices?  

Second, from your perspective, what percentage of of the housing buble was caused by the government, and how much by greedy investors who overextended themselves?

What is my base ideology I hold that things shouild be better?  Where did you get that?  You reading me as some sort of progressive who believes that if the government meddles enough, things will be just fine?  If you do, you certainly don't get where I am coming from at all.  As far as derivatives go, they are things that cause people to take excess risks due to overleveraging due to overconfidence in them, as has been seen, and what Warren Buffett warned about.

As far as this fiction you keep spewing, regarding the government putting a gun to the head and FORCED them do derivatives off loans and what not, care to point to anything else but the Community Reinvestment Act:

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

Because you are spinning fiction here that would argue that if there was no government, there wouldn't be any bubbles at all.  This is complete and total nonsense.  But, you are free to keep sticking with this fiction. 

I will add that this did play a role in it:
http://blog.youwalkaway.com/why-did-the-housing-market-crash/

Why, because that's generally the easiest one to do so.  There is always the "most loans failed werent' sub prime ones" but what that ignores is that the first ones were, it's what started the domino effect.

It's not a fiction... it's reality, hell you yourself are point to OTHER government reasons they created the bubble, i didn't say it was ONLY the community reinvestment act.  Though that did play a big part.

I don't know if you noticed, but the government is putting a gun to peoples heads to give loans to people who shouldn't have them... RIGHT NOW.

Annnnd again, I will ask.  Why are you asking what could create 500,000 jobs, when in reality we should be losing waaaay waaaay more jobs under your new stated beliefs.