I'm pretty skeptical of Michael Hudson kinds of narratives on financialization and rentiers. But I'm not really sure I properly understand how rent works. It seems to me that capitalism stagnates due to the falling rate of profit and not due to high rents and debts. If anything high rent and debt are mostly signs of a large amount of industrial development and a high demand for raw resources. I am particularly skeptical that investment into real estate is the cause behind deindustrialization. If anything the big real-estate investment trusts are a consequence of a worldwide larger and larger demand for raw resources due to the industrialization of the semi-periphery.
why looks for a clear chain of cause and effect when most phenomena have both many causes and many effects and even when A can be said to cause B, B can also be said to cause A in a feedback loop?
TFRP, absent anything else, doesn't really explain very well why capitalism would have periodic crises, much of what goes into the specifics of crises when they happen is an issue of finance. I don't believe Hudson puts finance at the primary driver of capitalism or what have you, he's focused on mid-level economics, which is, in capitalism, broadly handled through finance.
>>2846725A demand for resources doesn’t automatically mean more jobs extracting such resources. If workers don’t have jobs, high rents/debts become an immediate issue.
Look at this graph
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/VAPGDPFIFinance and real estate don't seem to be a very big component of GDP, nor do they appear to be increasing much.