David Graeber's book on Debt: The First 5,000 Years emphasizes that it may be impossible to maintain an engine of perpetual economic growth forever on a finite planet. This bearish view of capitalism could perhaps be complemented by Hernando de Soto's bullish ideas on expanded property rights from the other end of the political spectrum.
I was wondering whether one could do a parody of de Soto's The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else by suggesting that not only the disadvantaged poor but also (some) animals should receive legal ownership of "their" property in a currently informal economy. For instance, a deer could be given property rights to a small share of its forest, and a zoo animal would receive part of the proceeds from my entrance ticket, but human labor costs for its keepers and its daily upkeep would be deducted duely from its "personal" account. Lots of new financial and economic activity, employment and economic growth could result, and everybody would be happy (give and take only the usual small matters) and perhaps treated justly.
Where does such a parody run into most substantial conflict with reality as we perceive it? The first thought that comes to mind is that you could not expect conscious economic decisions (as in accepting credit terms) from animals: but then give them (automatic) index funds, or let their "owners" stand in for them like parents currently stand in for their children or custodians for disabled persons. I'm quite sure the idea could and should not fly as a whole (and I've become impatient towards de Soto's single point of view), but it seems to be an interesting area to explore also as a reflection on our human situation.