It is related to one form of riba (high leverage).

In the following paper computer simulation was used to see what happens when there is leverage in the market. Leverage limits used are the normal limits that are available in standard financial markets.

We build a simple model of leveraged asset purchases with margin calls.
Investment funds use what is perhaps the most basic financial strategy,
called “value investing”, i.e. systematically attempting to buy underpriced assets. When funds do not borrow, the price fluctuations of the
asset are normally distributed and uncorrelated across time. All this
changes when the funds are allowed to leverage, i.e. borrow from a bank,
to purchase more assets than their wealth would otherwise permit. During good times competition drives investors to funds that use more leverage, because they have higher profits. As leverage increases price fluctuations become heavy tailed and display clustered volatility, similar to
what is observed in real markets. Previous explanations of fat tails and
clustered volatility depended on “irrational behavior”, such as trend following. Here instead this comes from the fact that leverage limits cause
funds to sell into a falling market: A prudent bank makes itself locally
safer by putting a limit to leverage, so when a fund exceeds its leverage
limit, it must partially repay its loan by selling the asset. Unfortunately
this sometimes happens to all the funds simultaneously when the price
is already falling. The resulting nonlinear feedback amplifies large downward price movements. At the extreme this causes crashes, but the effect
is seen at every time scale, producing a power law of price disturbances.
A standard (supposedly more sophisticated) risk control policy in which
individual banks base leverage limits on volatility causes leverage to rise
during periods of low volatility, and to contract more quickly when volatility gets high, making these extreme fluctuations even worse.

Full paper:
In summary, leverage causes people and business to pay more than their real value and creates systematic inequalities, creating conditions for sharp crashes. But disciplined borrowing is not bad and done withing reasonable limits. It is debatable what are those limits, one paper argued for a country borrowing up to 100% of its GDP is beneficial, after that it creates problem with growth (assuming the country is utilizing its money normally and it is not involved in conflicts or have high corruption). Investment in infrastructure can create more value as these assets helps businesses, this is one example of properly utilizing money.