The world's elites, because they live in a system created by themselves for themselves, tend to see events like Brexit and President Trump as aberrations rather than symptoms of a fatal disease. They're wrong of course, and the great Glenn Greenwald has posted an essay (Democrats, Trump, and the Ongoing, Dangerous Refusal to Learn the Lesson of Brexit) that explains why. Here are a few excerpts:

Put simply, Democrats knowingly chose to nominate a deeply unpopular, extremely vulnerable, scandal-plagued candidate, who -- for very good reason -- was widely perceived to be a protector and beneficiary of all the worst components of status quo elite corruption. It's astonishing that those of us who tried frantically to warn Democrats that nominating Hillary Clinton was a huge and scary gamble, that all empirical evidence showed that she could lose to anyone and that Bernie Sanders would be a much stronger candidate especially in this climate -- are now the ones being blamed: by the very same people who insisted on ignoring all that data and nominating her anyway.

But that's just basic blame-shifting and self-preservation. Far more significant is what this shows about the mentality of the Democratic Party. Just think about who they nominated: someone who -- when she wasn't dining with Saudi monarchs and being feted in Davos by tyrants who gave million-dollar checks -- spent the last several years piggishly running around to Wall Street banks and major corporations cashing in with $250,000 fees for 45-minute secret speeches even though she had already become unimaginably rich with book advances while her husband already made tens of millions playing these same games. She did all that without the slightest apparent concern for how that would feed into all the perceptions and resentments of her and the Democratic Party as corrupt, status-quo-protecting, aristocratic tools of the rich and powerful: exactly the worst possible behavior for this post-2008-economic-crisis era of globalism and destroyed industries.

It goes without saying that Trump is a sociopathic con artist obsessed with personal enrichment: the opposite of a genuine warrior for the downtrodden. That's too obvious to debate. But, just as Obama did so powerfully in 2008, he could credibly run as an enemy of the D.C. and Wall Street system that has steamrolled over so many people, while Hillary Clinton is its loyal guardian, its consummate beneficiary.

Trump vowed to destroy the system that elites love (for good reason) and the masses hate (for equally good reason), while Clinton vowed to more efficiently manage it. That, as Matt Stoller's indispensable article in the Atlantic three weeks ago documented, is the conniving choice the Democratic Party made decades ago: to abandon populism and become the party of technocratically proficient, mildly benevolent mangers of elite power. Those are the cynical, self-interested seeds they planted, and now the crop has sprouted.

Instead of acknowledging and addressing the fundamental flaws within themselves, [elites] are devoting their energies to demonizing the victims of their corruption, all in order to delegitimize those grievances and thus relieve themselves of responsibility to meaningfully address them. That reaction only serves to bolster, if not vindicate, the animating perceptions that these elite institutions are hopelessly self-interested, toxic, and destructive and thus cannot be reformed but rather must be destroyed. That, in turn, only ensures there will be many more Brexits, and Trumps, in our collective future.

People often talk about "racism/sexism/xenophobia" v. "economic suffering" as if they are totally distinct dichotomies. Of course there are substantial elements of both in Trump's voting base, but the two categories are inextricably linked: the more economic suffering people endure, the angrier and more bitter they get, the easier it is to direct their anger to scapegoats. Economic suffering often fuels ugly bigotry. It is true that many Trump voters are relatively well-off and that many of the nation's poorest voted for Clinton, but, as Michael Moore quite presciently warned, those portions of the country that have been most ravaged by free trade orgies and globalism -- Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa -- were filled with rage and "see [Trump] as a chance to be the human Molotov cocktail that they'd like to throw into the system to blow it up." Those are the places that were decisive in Trump's victory.

For many years, the U.S. -- like the U.K. and other western nations -- has embarked on a course that virtually guaranteed a collapse of elite authority and internal implosion. From the invasion of Iraq to the 2008 financial crisis to the all-consuming framework of prisons and endless wars, societal benefits have been directed almost exclusively to the very elite institutions most responsible for failure at the expense of everyone else.

It was only a matter of time before instability, backlash and disruption resulted. Both Brexit and Trump unmistakably signal its arrival. The only question is whether those two cataclysmic events will be the peak of this process, or just the beginning. And that, in turn, will be determined by whether their crucial lessons are learned -- truly internalized -- or ignored in favor of self-exonerating campaigns to blame everyone else.

Watching the post-election news, it's not clear that either the right or left gets the depth of the systemic failure. Instead, as Greenwald notes, they're mostly gloating or pointing fingers at others.

Meanwhile from a purely financial perspective it's been clear for a couple of decades that the system was beyond (painlessly) fixing. So while Brexit and Trump are wake-up calls – or Molotov cocktails – neither present the developed world with any actual solutions.

Whoever's in charge, and whatever tweaks they make to existing structures, our mountain of debt will eventually produce an epic crisis, talking politics along for the ride. So to answer Greenwald's question about whether recent events represent the peak of this process, that's highly unlikely. Much more likely is a series of financial/political crises that make the past few decades' booms and busts look like an island of stability.