i agree with you. Hudson's view on capital is half way to minsky's cyclical capital investent theory. i am sure if he is asked in more detail, he will fully endorse minsky's view which i think is the most relevant view. and of course who can forget bill clinton, phil grhamm and lawrence summers and robert rubin. in fact the fincnacial services modernization act was even called grahmm leach bliley act.
but exactly here is where my inner marxist kick in. I think wahtever act you make, as long as the power is concentrated in the hands of a small few, there will always find a way to monopolize the system and take all power in their hands. so in the lingo of marx, capitalism is a system destined to monopolization due to concentration of wealth in the hands of the "capitalists". as a result arguing about how one act or two were alone the major blunders which caused all the trouble is disingeneous. as slavoj zizek points out, any ideology/politics is responsible for all its consequences, those intended and those not intended.
but exactly here is where my inner marxist kick in. I think wahtever act you make, as long as the power is concentrated in the hands of a small few, there will always find a way to monopolize the system and take all power in their hands. so in the lingo of marx, capitalism is a system destined to monopolization due to concentration of wealth in the hands of the "capitalists". as a result arguing about how one act or two were alone the major blunders which caused all the trouble is disingeneous. as slavoj zizek points out, any ideology/politics is responsible for all its consequences, those intended and those not intended.
