"Rolling back" was my characterization of his statement. Subverting probably would have done better, as the process seems more like one of re-establishing the relative wealth and power distributions that characterized the feudal system but without the explicit relationships between lords and vassals or the explicit oaths. Nor is the end of the process yet a fait accomplis. The White House proposal to combine all of the financial supervisory powers in the Federal Reserve fortunately appears to be a non-starter on Capitol Hill, where there is pressure to separate supervision of the markets from control of the money supply. But very significant regulatory power over banking was added to the Fed under Clinton in the early ninties where it was rendered useless by the studious refusal to regulate during the Chairmanship of Greenspan. Hudson sees little difference in the appetite of Bernanke for regulation. Certainly the appointment of regulators who won't regulate has been the order of the day since Reagan and I, for one, have NOT noticed a marked improvement under Obama.

As to the...

..images of evil genius megalomaniacs huddling in underground hideaways plotting to become masters of the universe...

image, that was neither invoked by Hudson or myself, required to explain ongoing events nor, I believe, anything but an establishment trophe designed to cause critics to repeatedly strike their foreheads with their fists and fall back in confusion.

Hudson DOES make the point that all of the individual liberties that have been gained for the many at the expense of the few since John Locke are and have been under sustained assault in the second half of the 20th century and that the effect of that assault has been to turn on its head the intent of the work from Adam Smith to John Stuart Mill to make the economy work for the benefit of society rather than for the feudal elite, as was formerly the case.  He asserts that this has been accomplished by the redefinition of freedom as the freedom of business and financial leaders to pillage what is left of the assets of those weaker than them and to systematically seek to repeal such safeguards as remain through bankruptcy law "reform", tort law "reform" (malpractice and product liability), and the repeal of Glass-Steagall. (Some of these examples may not have been offered by Hudson.)

I had not realized that real estate mortgage debt cannot be abandoned in Iceland or much of Europe. To those pinned with underwater mortgages that stay with them until death this must seem like a new serfdom. But I agree that this is not terribly advantageous to the debt holders. The situation in the USA where those who inflated the bubble get their counterfeit profits guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of generations yet unborn seems better. Perhaps an improved and updated feudalism that brings the advantages of three hundred years of improving economic flexibility into the service of an elite now possessing wealth and power with respect to the society as a whole comparable to that possessed by the nobles over the commoners under feudalism. To paraphrase Churchill, perhaps we are entering an new dark age made more sinister by the lights of perverted economics.

Successful business people have long bought titles of nobility as an insignia of success.  The end point of that process is that they (collectively) have bought the governments that control those who grant those titles.

Hudson has worked at the upper levels of the financial world. He does not describe the leaders as huddling together into any conspiracy. That is both highly unlikely and unnecessary.  First of all, these leaders of business enterprises are all competing against each other for relative power and influence, so they will only cooperate on common goals. These include the removal or neutering of laws and regulations that constrain them from unfettered "competition."  And the fruits of that competition have somehow most disproportionately ended up in their hands--not as the result of a conspiracy but not as an accident either.

The actions that have brought about the current state of affairs have been the result of a shared understanding of a common interest amongst a relatively small group of businesspeople who understood the possibilities and opportunities. Individuals acted opportunistically but individually. Sandy Weil and Citi took the lead on the repeal of Glass-Steagall, acting in conjunction with Robert Rubin, formerly of Goldman Sachs but then Secretary of Treasure under Clinton. But probably all of the big financial corporations lobbied for the passage. Often this was done through Political Action Committees. See, that is not a conspiracy.

Hudson's talk is incendiary.
But Hudson is NOT a nut.
Hudson just has guts.
And a position that does not require him to believe or speak nonsense.
Would that there were more such as he.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."