I came across this interesting video which I am offering as food for thought.
While I am unfamiliar with Michael Hudson he makes a case in this video about how financial services, debt, the real estate market and the 1% actually function the way parasites feed off of a host. Keeping it alive long enough by fooling the host into believing that the parasite is a functioning part of the body until it can kill its host in such a way that it is consumed by a new host. Which becomes a new source of food for the parasite. He spends the first 5 minutes or so of the video explaining how biological parasites function and then expands the analogy into how the banking, insurance, and financial sectors are using the same strategies to feed on the 99% while giving nothing back. How the 1% are flush with savings and how we enable interest payments to them for those savings in the way of assets. Which they hold at ever increasing value and we pay for with higher real estate (and I assume) rental prices as unearned income. Often disguised as service costs. At the end of the day this is one the most interesting economic arguments I've heard in a while explaining our current predicament. It seems to bolster solutions offered by progressives. I believe that, if it is a valid analogy, this could be an extremely potent counterpoint to neolibertarian economics. It suggests that the proposals by Bernie Sanders would provide a wide solution in terms of economic reform. Furthermore, how such reforms as making the wealthiest paying their fair share, might bring about much greater economic relief in much less time than expected.
He also gives hope by pointing out that the job of antibodies in an organism is to defeat parasites. And that economically the way this would be done is by taxing them equal to whatever their assets, often currently tax free or close to it, are worth. He suggests this will kill them and eliminate huge amounts of unearned debt that everyone else pays to them. That these debts are not a normal part of doing business but are 'blood' being siphoned off to feed these 'vampires' (such as the vampire squid which he mentions). In other words, his claim is that that taxation will pay off our expanding debt rates, which increase at the beginning of each bubble cycle. And I'm sure he believes this will get rid of bubbles themselves. In doing so he delves into just a little bit of economic history and theory to back up his argument.
I can't give insight to the veracity of his ideas. He argues that the parasitic strategy explains how the wealthiest get away with paying little to no taxes compared to their income. He argues that even economists on the left have been fooled into thinking that much of this is normal business as usual and they don't see that many of these financial instruments are not part of a healthy, normal economic 'body'. Warning: he goes after one of the major economists we on the left hold as a sacred cow, Paul Krugman. He also claims (not in the video but the Wikipedia link on him that I have included) that quantitative easing is also hurting us and not helping, although in a way I hadn't considered. Until now, I felt quantitative easing was the proper thing for the Fed to do to make up for the lack of strong Keynesian stimulus. I might be rethinking this. He tells how and why in other countries traditionally leftist parties, (and by extention, conservative Democratic party enablers) have recently begun to invoke austerity measures. How they have been taken in by believing that many of these financial 'services' are part of ordinary business cycles as usual.
He declares economist Steve Keen as one of Hudson's allies. Which will give those familiar with Keen but not Hudson an idea of in what direction he suggests we move. The Wikipedia article says that Hudson finds that Joseph Stiglitz has a viewpoint close to his own. But if we are the party of realism and rationalism, as good skeptical thinkers perhaps we need to consider that the situation is even worse than it is and that perhaps a couple things many of us champion, such as quantitative easing, might be more harmful than helpful. He potentially suggests going even further beyond what one of our favorite economic prognosticators is saying. Frankly, I think Hudson and Krugman disagree more on details than on the actual remedy. At the end of the day I think Hudson bolsters the economic solutions we seek. An important part of skeptical, rational thinking is a willingness to change our minds about something if the evidence is strong and compelling. I've not made up my mind on a couple of admittedly minor points in his speech. But it has it now has a few new ideas ruminating in my mind which I feel I need to explore and consider.
Obviously, if anyone here has criticisms of Hudson or his ideas, please bring them up. However, the term 'economic parasites' which has been used as an ad hominem against the oligarchy and the Masters of the Universe, may be a concise, perhaps even scientific, description of their actual activities against the economic health of everyone else. The framework he presents suggests a new way that some of us might view our current economic and policy conundrum.