I've seen this concept thrown around for awhile now. It's not new, and was originally defined and labeled by a German Social Scientist in the 1920's (Werner Sombart) assuming Wikipedia at least has the name and timing correct. I didn't read this guys works on the matter nor have I studied it extensively though did find a site (link and details below) though I think we can all understand what this is about intuitively. It assumes Capitalism (free markets?) follow a product/life cycle and we're supposedly in the end stage today. This has occurred on more than one occasion, with the fall of the Russian Empire to the Bolsheviks and the decade preceding the Russian Revolution were an ideal time for Democratic states that had capitalistic economic systems or simply a high percentage of wealth concentrated in the hands of a few where the "capitalist pigs" could be royalty/nobility as much as industrialists. In the past the free market driven democracies/republics have found ways to mitigate the risk - to "extend the life" of capitalism through the introduction of labor unions and anti-trust laws being the most prominent fixes in the early 20th century.

Today I think we are flirting with the notion that our latest iteration of capitalism - which is a regulated free market economy today - is becoming unstable. I think we all see it - corporations are trying to monetize "everything". You rarely buy music on physical media anymore - it's mostly subscription based. The decline of the cable industry is becoming more expensive with streaming services. Corporations continue to make more inroads into areas that were more the realm of small businesses. It's getting harder to find independent physicians as partnerships are giving way to corporate entities. I believe real estate has been outpacing inflation by significant levels - which I'm thinking is due to corporations buying up houses to make them rental properties. Amazon has killed a lot of smaller independent sellers and...of course their prices have been rising significantly since they've deeply damaged brick and mortar stores.

https://voicesofcapitalism.com/late-stag...-examples/

Quote:Wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of a small elite while the majority struggle with stagnant wages and rising costs.

Large corporations dominate markets, reduce competition, and shape public policy to serve their interests.

Late-stage capitalism pushes constant consumption as a driver of economic growth, often through artificial needs and emotional manipulation.

Financial markets dominate the economy, prioritizing shareholder value over productive investment and worker welfare.

The gig economy replaces stable employment with precarious, low-benefit, short-term jobs that undermine labor rights.

What are your thoughts? Will we adapt again to get more use out of our free market systems? One area I think has been grossly underutilized is anti-trust laws that we currently have on the books. There have been MANY times in our recent past where M&A was allowed to proceed where in the past it never would have happened as a result of creating entities with monopoly powers.

(10-13-2025 09:28 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I've seen this concept thrown around for awhile now. It's not new, and was originally defined and labeled by a German Social Scientist in the 1920's (Werner Sombart) assuming Wikipedia at least has the name and timing correct. I didn't read this guys works on the matter nor have I studied it extensively though did find a site (link and details below) though I think we can all understand what this is about intuitively. It assumes Capitalism (free markets?) follow a product/life cycle and we're supposedly in the end stage today. This has occurred on more than one occasion, with the fall of the Russian Empire to the Bolsheviks and the decade preceding the Russian Revolution were an ideal time for Democratic states that had capitalistic economic systems or simply a high percentage of wealth concentrated in the hands of a few where the "capitalist pigs" could be royalty/nobility as much as industrialists. In the past the free market driven democracies/republics have found ways to mitigate the risk - to "extend the life" of capitalism through the introduction of labor unions and anti-trust laws being the most prominent fixes in the early 20th century.

Today I think we are flirting with the notion that our latest iteration of capitalism - which is a regulated free market economy today - is becoming unstable. I think we all see it - corporations are trying to monetize "everything". You rarely buy music on physical media anymore - it's mostly subscription based. The decline of the cable industry is becoming more expensive with streaming services. Corporations continue to make more inroads into areas that were more the realm of small businesses. It's getting harder to find independent physicians as partnerships are giving way to corporate entities. I believe real estate has been outpacing inflation by significant levels - which I'm thinking is due to corporations buying up houses to make them rental properties. Amazon has killed a lot of smaller independent sellers and...of course their prices have been rising significantly since they've deeply damaged brick and mortar stores.

https://voicesofcapitalism.com/late-stag...-examples/

Quote:Wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of a small elite while the majority struggle with stagnant wages and rising costs.

Large corporations dominate markets, reduce competition, and shape public policy to serve their interests.

Late-stage capitalism pushes constant consumption as a driver of economic growth, often through artificial needs and emotional manipulation.

Financial markets dominate the economy, prioritizing shareholder value over productive investment and worker welfare.

The gig economy replaces stable employment with precarious, low-benefit, short-term jobs that undermine labor rights.

What are your thoughts? Will we adapt again to get more use out of our free market systems? One area I think has been grossly underutilized is anti-trust laws that we currently have on the books. There have been MANY times in our recent past where M&A was allowed to proceed where in the past it never would have happened as a result of creating entities with monopoly powers.

until the last 50 years or so the Gig economy was the norm. You rarely held jobs for years/lifetime.
Until unions and large corporations, The wealth was held by a few elites. We are not headed for something new but returning to the way things always were.

(10-13-2025 09:38 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(10-13-2025 09:28 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I've seen this concept thrown around for awhile now. It's not new, and was originally defined and labeled by a German Social Scientist in the 1920's (Werner Sombart) assuming Wikipedia at least has the name and timing correct. I didn't read this guys works on the matter nor have I studied it extensively though did find a site (link and details below) though I think we can all understand what this is about intuitively. It assumes Capitalism (free markets?) follow a product/life cycle and we're supposedly in the end stage today. This has occurred on more than one occasion, with the fall of the Russian Empire to the Bolsheviks and the decade preceding the Russian Revolution were an ideal time for Democratic states that had capitalistic economic systems or simply a high percentage of wealth concentrated in the hands of a few where the "capitalist pigs" could be royalty/nobility as much as industrialists. In the past the free market driven democracies/republics have found ways to mitigate the risk - to "extend the life" of capitalism through the introduction of labor unions and anti-trust laws being the most prominent fixes in the early 20th century.

Today I think we are flirting with the notion that our latest iteration of capitalism - which is a regulated free market economy today - is becoming unstable. I think we all see it - corporations are trying to monetize "everything". You rarely buy music on physical media anymore - it's mostly subscription based. The decline of the cable industry is becoming more expensive with streaming services. Corporations continue to make more inroads into areas that were more the realm of small businesses. It's getting harder to find independent physicians as partnerships are giving way to corporate entities. I believe real estate has been outpacing inflation by significant levels - which I'm thinking is due to corporations buying up houses to make them rental properties. Amazon has killed a lot of smaller independent sellers and...of course their prices have been rising significantly since they've deeply damaged brick and mortar stores.

https://voicesofcapitalism.com/late-stag...-examples/

Quote:Wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of a small elite while the majority struggle with stagnant wages and rising costs.

Large corporations dominate markets, reduce competition, and shape public policy to serve their interests.

Late-stage capitalism pushes constant consumption as a driver of economic growth, often through artificial needs and emotional manipulation.

Financial markets dominate the economy, prioritizing shareholder value over productive investment and worker welfare.

The gig economy replaces stable employment with precarious, low-benefit, short-term jobs that undermine labor rights.

What are your thoughts? Will we adapt again to get more use out of our free market systems? One area I think has been grossly underutilized is anti-trust laws that we currently have on the books. There have been MANY times in our recent past where M&A was allowed to proceed where in the past it never would have happened as a result of creating entities with monopoly powers.

until the last 50 years or so the Gig economy was the norm. You rarely held jobs for years/lifetime.
Until unions and large corporations, The wealth was held by a few elites. We are not headed for something new but returning to the way things always were.

I think of free market/capitalist systems as evolving over time and that there were a series of gates that it had to pass thru in order to continue on as an economic system that made sense. I don't know enough of British history during the Industrial Revolution but this is where capitalism truly hit its stride and to your point a lot of these jobs were of shorter term. They weren't as bad as the ancient times where it was popular for jobs to be truly gigs since workers would be hired for a day at a time; however, yes I think labor in the 1700s into the late 1800s were shorter term with zero safety nets. Recall that Karl Marx's philosophy on Communism was significantly more popular in the late 1800's into the pre-WW1 time frame than it is today. Capitalism was in serious trouble since you not only had no real rights for workers plus monarchies still existed in Europe where they held way more power than today. The free market economies survived Marxist threats because of the reforms of the early 20th century where labor unions became stronger, anti-trust laws to help prevent industrialists from gaining too much power and the introductions of the social safety nets along with the concept of pensions that transformed the capitalist/free market system we enjoy today.

However, while the development and growth of a middle class extended the life of capitalist systems it's been trending in the wrong direction. At least that's the perception today, and with AI in our midst today along with the costs feeling high compared to recent years it's a legitimate concern.

I've read about it, but it's usually coming from the mouths of communists.

(10-13-2025 10:13 AM)VA49er Wrote:  I've read about it, but it's usually coming from the mouths of communists.

Same. I always prefer capitalism, but corporatism needs to be reigned in if not out right abolished. But, I doubt Trump or Vance will do anything about it. AOC and Gavin Newsom certainly won't.

(10-13-2025 10:13 AM)VA49er Wrote:  I've read about it, but it's usually coming from the mouths of communists.

Regardless of the merits or lack thereof of the concept of Late Stage Capitalism - the perception that it's true is greater now than it has been in decades.

Ask your typical adult in the labor force in the late 60s about late stage capitalism and he (probably would be a guy) would laugh at the notion. Households survived on a single income - many did so comfortably. A solidly middle class household could likely pay for college out of pocket to any state school. Ask somebody this question today of a working adult and the response may very well be different.

This is the situation we're facing as a country today. I think some of the points brought up by those from the link I provided are valid. Other's are not. Regardless of whether you believe it or not - the perception is out there that our economy doesn't work for everyone to the level it used to. That's the issue that Trump and later presidents will have to wrestle with. The rest of what's going on is secondary to the economy.

(10-13-2025 10:13 AM)VA49er Wrote:  I've read about it, but it's usually coming from the mouths of communists.

I agree.

Capitalism is not a product with a life cycle.

(10-13-2025 10:29 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(10-13-2025 10:13 AM)VA49er Wrote:  I've read about it, but it's usually coming from the mouths of communists.

Same. I always prefer capitalism, but corporatism needs to be reigned in if not out right abolished. But, I doubt Trump or Vance will do anything about it. AOC and Gavin Newsom certainly won't.

The Democratic Party's crony capitalism has lead to a lot of distortions. Amazon and Google simply need anti-trust law applied to them.

(10-13-2025 10:34 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-13-2025 10:13 AM)VA49er Wrote:  I've read about it, but it's usually coming from the mouths of communists.

Regardless of the merits or lack thereof of the concept of Late Stage Capitalism - the perception that it's true is greater now than it has been in decades.

Ask your typical adult in the labor force in the late 60s about late stage capitalism and he (probably would be a guy) would laugh at the notion. Households survived on a single income - many did so comfortably. A solidly middle class household could likely pay for college out of pocket to any state school. Ask somebody this question today of a working adult and the response may very well be different.

This is the situation we're facing as a country today. I think some of the points brought up by those from the link I provided are valid. Other's are not. Regardless of whether you believe it or not - the perception is out there that our economy doesn't work for everyone to the level it used to. That's the issue that Trump and later presidents will have to wrestle with. The rest of what's going on is secondary to the economy.

Things were a lot tougher in the 30s. They were pretty tough in the 70s. They were tough in the early 1900s with automation. Anytime there are transitions, things can be difficult for a while. That's not a capitalism failing. That's simply life.

My opinion - this is a BS theory being written off simple observation with heavily biased conclusions.

First, we are in such a unique period relative to the 12,000 years of known human existence. It took us thousands of years to get to steel and only to us 100 years to get from the automobile to quantum computing and AI. There is nothing in history that allows for an accurate comparison to today’s US version of capitalism.

Another thing, there is no example of any form of economic system in history where wealth isn’t controlled by a small group. The real difference is the basis for which those group members are determined. The one constant across all systems is the 99% complaining about the 1%. The 99% throughout history have risen up, killed the 1% only to have a new 1% emerge. It’s why I consider “common folk” who push socialism and communism the dumbest creatures on the planet. They are pushing for the systems that guarantees their failure while simply granting power to the class they will eventually hate.

(10-13-2025 10:53 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-13-2025 10:34 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-13-2025 10:13 AM)VA49er Wrote:  I've read about it, but it's usually coming from the mouths of communists.

Regardless of the merits or lack thereof of the concept of Late Stage Capitalism - the perception that it's true is greater now than it has been in decades.

Ask your typical adult in the labor force in the late 60s about late stage capitalism and he (probably would be a guy) would laugh at the notion. Households survived on a single income - many did so comfortably. A solidly middle class household could likely pay for college out of pocket to any state school. Ask somebody this question today of a working adult and the response may very well be different.

This is the situation we're facing as a country today. I think some of the points brought up by those from the link I provided are valid. Other's are not. Regardless of whether you believe it or not - the perception is out there that our economy doesn't work for everyone to the level it used to. That's the issue that Trump and later presidents will have to wrestle with. The rest of what's going on is secondary to the economy.

Things were a lot tougher in the 30s. They were pretty tough in the 70s. They were tough in the early 1900s with automation. Anytime there are transitions, things can be difficult for a while. That's not a capitalism failing. That's simply life.

Yes I agree that the creative/destruction events can be interpreted as endings when in reality it's just natural evolution of the system. But as pointed out earlier that the innovations are coming at increasingly accelerated rates, and this could become a major issue if we can't adapt quickly enough.

(10-13-2025 11:26 AM)banker Wrote:  My opinion - this is a BS theory being written off simple observation with heavily biased conclusions.

First, we are in such a unique period relative to the 12,000 years of known human existence. It took us thousands of years to get to steel and only to us 100 years to get from the automobile to quantum computing and AI. There is nothing in history that allows for an accurate comparison to today’s US version of capitalism.

Another thing, there is no example of any form of economic system in history where wealth isn’t controlled by a small group. The real difference is the basis for which those group members are determined. The one constant across all systems is the 99% complaining about the 1%. The 99% throughout history have risen up, killed the 1% only to have a new 1% emerge. It’s why I consider “common folk” who push socialism and communism the dumbest creatures on the planet. They are pushing for the systems that guarantees their failure while simply granting power to the class they will eventually hate.

while I agree, I also agree with miko's point about antitrust and how it's mostly been ignored since the ma bell break up?

from real estate to the vets (as I've recently learned), corps/investment management firms buying up such in bulk coupled with the 401k/roth has introduced another set of metrics that makes the wealth gap not only real for those that cannot, but will creep into those that have saved once that gap hits the law of diminishing ... hence, why I see a serious crash once the price points reach limits unachievable across the spectrum...

regardless, I'll be ashes one way or the other at some point (and hopefully fishing in #costa before such)...

(10-13-2025 11:32 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-13-2025 10:53 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-13-2025 10:34 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-13-2025 10:13 AM)VA49er Wrote:  I've read about it, but it's usually coming from the mouths of communists.

Regardless of the merits or lack thereof of the concept of Late Stage Capitalism - the perception that it's true is greater now than it has been in decades.

Ask your typical adult in the labor force in the late 60s about late stage capitalism and he (probably would be a guy) would laugh at the notion. Households survived on a single income - many did so comfortably. A solidly middle class household could likely pay for college out of pocket to any state school. Ask somebody this question today of a working adult and the response may very well be different.

This is the situation we're facing as a country today. I think some of the points brought up by those from the link I provided are valid. Other's are not. Regardless of whether you believe it or not - the perception is out there that our economy doesn't work for everyone to the level it used to. That's the issue that Trump and later presidents will have to wrestle with. The rest of what's going on is secondary to the economy.

Things were a lot tougher in the 30s. They were pretty tough in the 70s. They were tough in the early 1900s with automation. Anytime there are transitions, things can be difficult for a while. That's not a capitalism failing. That's simply life.

Yes I agree that the creative/destruction events can be interpreted as endings when in reality it's just natural evolution of the system. But as pointed out earlier that the innovations are coming at increasingly accelerated rates, and this could become a major issue if we can't adapt quickly enough.

that's the crux...

(10-13-2025 11:26 AM)banker Wrote:  My opinion - this is a BS theory being written off simple observation with heavily biased conclusions.

First, we are in such a unique period relative to the 12,000 years of known human existence. It took us thousands of years to get to steel and only to us 100 years to get from the automobile to quantum computing and AI. There is nothing in history that allows for an accurate comparison to today’s US version of capitalism.

Another thing, there is no example of any form of economic system in history where wealth isn’t controlled by a small group. The real difference is the basis for which those group members are determined. The one constant across all systems is the 99% complaining about the 1%. The 99% throughout history have risen up, killed the 1% only to have a new 1% emerge. It’s why I consider “common folk” who push socialism and communism the dumbest creatures on the planet. They are pushing for the systems that guarantees their failure while simply granting power to the class they will eventually hate.

There is always an economic hierarchy with our history. There is no way around it with a free market system where riches are the reward for innovation. But a counterpoint to consider - and why people can come out to overthrow the current order is when that wealth inequality becomes too great. I don't know where that magic number is that could become a tipping point. Is it 5% of the population controls the majority of wealth - 1%, 0.5%, 0.001%? I strongly suspect that a tipping point does exist - and hopefully the government is smart enough to figure out when regulation needs to come into play to prevent that tipping point from occurring.

Why would common folk risk throwing the establishment over when they likely realize that a new one will establish itself sooner or later? I suppose it's a situation that develops where despite a likely repeat of a new group of "haves" dominating the majority - the unknown looks more attractive than what is known. Also consider that SOME of these common folk may simply fare better in a new system - even if the new system brings about another unequal distribution of wealth. Hope that things will be better for at least you if not the majority makes the game worth playing.

I agree, the very few wealthy controlling everything isn't new.

Most of the people who use that phrase are on Reddit who are just doing nothing all day.

(10-13-2025 11:26 AM)banker Wrote:  My opinion - this is a BS theory being written off simple observation with heavily biased conclusions.

First, we are in such a unique period relative to the 12,000 years of known human existence. It took us thousands of years to get to steel and only to us 100 years to get from the automobile to quantum computing and AI. There is nothing in history that allows for an accurate comparison to today’s US version of capitalism.

Another thing, there is no example of any form of economic system in history where wealth isn’t controlled by a small group. The real difference is the basis for which those group members are determined. The one constant across all systems is the 99% complaining about the 1%. The 99% throughout history have risen up, killed the 1% only to have a new 1% emerge. It’s why I consider “common folk” who push socialism and communism the dumbest creatures on the planet. They are pushing for the systems that guarantees their failure while simply granting power to the class they will eventually hate.

(10-13-2025 09:28 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I've seen this concept thrown around for awhile now. It's not new, and was originally defined and labeled by a German Social Scientist in the 1920's (Werner Sombart) assuming Wikipedia at least has the name and timing correct. I didn't read this guys works on the matter nor have I studied it extensively though did find a site (link and details below) though I think we can all understand what this is about intuitively. It assumes Capitalism (free markets?) follow a product/life cycle and we're supposedly in the end stage today. This has occurred on more than one occasion, with the fall of the Russian Empire to the Bolsheviks and the decade preceding the Russian Revolution were an ideal time for Democratic states that had capitalistic economic systems or simply a high percentage of wealth concentrated in the hands of a few where the "capitalist pigs" could be royalty/nobility as much as industrialists. In the past the free market driven democracies/republics have found ways to mitigate the risk - to "extend the life" of capitalism through the introduction of labor unions and anti-trust laws being the most prominent fixes in the early 20th century.

Today I think we are flirting with the notion that our latest iteration of capitalism - which is a regulated free market economy today - is becoming unstable. I think we all see it - corporations are trying to monetize "everything". You rarely buy music on physical media anymore - it's mostly subscription based. The decline of the cable industry is becoming more expensive with streaming services. Corporations continue to make more inroads into areas that were more the realm of small businesses. It's getting harder to find independent physicians as partnerships are giving way to corporate entities. I believe real estate has been outpacing inflation by significant levels - which I'm thinking is due to corporations buying up houses to make them rental properties. Amazon has killed a lot of smaller independent sellers and...of course their prices have been rising significantly since they've deeply damaged brick and mortar stores.

https://voicesofcapitalism.com/late-stag...-examples/

Quote:Wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of a small elite while the majority struggle with stagnant wages and rising costs.

Large corporations dominate markets, reduce competition, and shape public policy to serve their interests.

Late-stage capitalism pushes constant consumption as a driver of economic growth, often through artificial needs and emotional manipulation.

Financial markets dominate the economy, prioritizing shareholder value over productive investment and worker welfare.

The gig economy replaces stable employment with precarious, low-benefit, short-term jobs that undermine labor rights.

What are your thoughts? Will we adapt again to get more use out of our free market systems? One area I think has been grossly underutilized is anti-trust laws that we currently have on the books. There have been MANY times in our recent past where M&A was allowed to proceed where in the past it never would have happened as a result of creating entities with monopoly powers.

What did Germany do? Therein resides your answer. Late-stage capitalism is not only subject to the propaganda of Communist agitation of the poorer masses, but its natural defense is to morph into fascism where a socialist state is provided by the industrial/corporate elite to secure the threat that communism poses. The State becomes the rallying point that disguises the designs of the corporate overlords and makes it seem like the country is united rather than exploited. Support the state and the state supports you. Question things and find out exactly how much your freedom has been eroded.

Freedom is essential to free markets. When insufficiently maintained with a balance of risk and opportunity it succeeds. But as the winners become more powerful, they use wealth to avoid risk rather than exploring opportunities. The creativity begins to give way to planned obsolescence, and perks are sought to ensure the winners stay the same. Competition and opportunity suffer, and we wind up where we are currently. Meanwhile, in a world that never ceased to be competitive resources become the primary objective of both business and the state. That means war. War raises productivity if you are winning and eliminates excess workforce. And the rich get richer. You will note that at the end of WWII that Porsche, Mercedez, Nissan, Toyota, Mitsubishi, and the German and italian aircraft manufacturers and ship builders all lived on under changed names, all remained viable as corporations. Only governments and people were destroyed. The wealthy lived on.

So you ask about late stage capitalism? Well we have two political parties in the U.S. both bent on a fascist approach to governance. The Republican version is at least peculiar to the U.S. while the Democratic version is more in tune with the E.U.. I just domestic imbalance over the foreign one!

(10-13-2025 06:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-13-2025 09:28 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I've seen this concept thrown around for awhile now. It's not new, and was originally defined and labeled by a German Social Scientist in the 1920's (Werner Sombart) assuming Wikipedia at least has the name and timing correct. I didn't read this guys works on the matter nor have I studied it extensively though did find a site (link and details below) though I think we can all understand what this is about intuitively. It assumes Capitalism (free markets?) follow a product/life cycle and we're supposedly in the end stage today. This has occurred on more than one occasion, with the fall of the Russian Empire to the Bolsheviks and the decade preceding the Russian Revolution were an ideal time for Democratic states that had capitalistic economic systems or simply a high percentage of wealth concentrated in the hands of a few where the "capitalist pigs" could be royalty/nobility as much as industrialists. In the past the free market driven democracies/republics have found ways to mitigate the risk - to "extend the life" of capitalism through the introduction of labor unions and anti-trust laws being the most prominent fixes in the early 20th century.

Today I think we are flirting with the notion that our latest iteration of capitalism - which is a regulated free market economy today - is becoming unstable. I think we all see it - corporations are trying to monetize "everything". You rarely buy music on physical media anymore - it's mostly subscription based. The decline of the cable industry is becoming more expensive with streaming services. Corporations continue to make more inroads into areas that were more the realm of small businesses. It's getting harder to find independent physicians as partnerships are giving way to corporate entities. I believe real estate has been outpacing inflation by significant levels - which I'm thinking is due to corporations buying up houses to make them rental properties. Amazon has killed a lot of smaller independent sellers and...of course their prices have been rising significantly since they've deeply damaged brick and mortar stores.

https://voicesofcapitalism.com/late-stag...-examples/

Quote:Wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of a small elite while the majority struggle with stagnant wages and rising costs.

Large corporations dominate markets, reduce competition, and shape public policy to serve their interests.

Late-stage capitalism pushes constant consumption as a driver of economic growth, often through artificial needs and emotional manipulation.

Financial markets dominate the economy, prioritizing shareholder value over productive investment and worker welfare.

The gig economy replaces stable employment with precarious, low-benefit, short-term jobs that undermine labor rights.

What are your thoughts? Will we adapt again to get more use out of our free market systems? One area I think has been grossly underutilized is anti-trust laws that we currently have on the books. There have been MANY times in our recent past where M&A was allowed to proceed where in the past it never would have happened as a result of creating entities with monopoly powers.

What did Germany do? Therein resides your answer. Late-stage capitalism is not only subject to the propaganda of Communist agitation of the poorer masses, but its natural defense is to morph into fascism where a socialist state is provided by the industrial/corporate elite to secure the threat that communism poses. The State becomes the rallying point that disguises the designs of the corporate overlords and makes it seem like the country is united rather than exploited. Support the state and the state supports you. Question things and find out exactly how much your freedom has been eroded.

Freedom is essential to free markets. When insufficiently maintained with a balance of risk and opportunity it succeeds. But as the winners become more powerful, they use wealth to avoid risk rather than exploring opportunities. The creativity begins to give way to planned obsolescence, and perks are sought to ensure the winners stay the same. Competition and opportunity suffer, and we wind up where we are currently. Meanwhile, in a world that never ceased to be competitive resources become the primary objective of both business and the state. That means war. War raises productivity if you are winning and eliminates excess workforce. And the rich get richer. You will note that at the end of WWII that Porsche, Mercedez, Nissan, Toyota, Mitsubishi, and the German and italian aircraft manufacturers and ship builders all lived on under changed names, all remained viable as corporations. Only governments and people were destroyed. The wealthy lived on.

So you ask about late stage capitalism? Well we have two political parties in the U.S. both bent on a fascist approach to governance. The Republican version is at least peculiar to the U.S. while the Democratic version is more in tune with the E.U.. I just domestic imbalance over the foreign one!

cha-ching...

w/o antitrust application, we're stuck with the better of the 'eval'...

One of the most redditard subjects of redditardia.
Bad stats, false assumptions, poorly understood economics and doomcasting


FFS

(10-13-2025 06:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-13-2025 09:28 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I've seen this concept thrown around for awhile now. It's not new, and was originally defined and labeled by a German Social Scientist in the 1920's (Werner Sombart) assuming Wikipedia at least has the name and timing correct. I didn't read this guys works on the matter nor have I studied it extensively though did find a site (link and details below) though I think we can all understand what this is about intuitively. It assumes Capitalism (free markets?) follow a product/life cycle and we're supposedly in the end stage today. This has occurred on more than one occasion, with the fall of the Russian Empire to the Bolsheviks and the decade preceding the Russian Revolution were an ideal time for Democratic states that had capitalistic economic systems or simply a high percentage of wealth concentrated in the hands of a few where the "capitalist pigs" could be royalty/nobility as much as industrialists. In the past the free market driven democracies/republics have found ways to mitigate the risk - to "extend the life" of capitalism through the introduction of labor unions and anti-trust laws being the most prominent fixes in the early 20th century.

Today I think we are flirting with the notion that our latest iteration of capitalism - which is a regulated free market economy today - is becoming unstable. I think we all see it - corporations are trying to monetize "everything". You rarely buy music on physical media anymore - it's mostly subscription based. The decline of the cable industry is becoming more expensive with streaming services. Corporations continue to make more inroads into areas that were more the realm of small businesses. It's getting harder to find independent physicians as partnerships are giving way to corporate entities. I believe real estate has been outpacing inflation by significant levels - which I'm thinking is due to corporations buying up houses to make them rental properties. Amazon has killed a lot of smaller independent sellers and...of course their prices have been rising significantly since they've deeply damaged brick and mortar stores.

https://voicesofcapitalism.com/late-stag...-examples/

Quote:Wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of a small elite while the majority struggle with stagnant wages and rising costs.

Large corporations dominate markets, reduce competition, and shape public policy to serve their interests.

Late-stage capitalism pushes constant consumption as a driver of economic growth, often through artificial needs and emotional manipulation.

Financial markets dominate the economy, prioritizing shareholder value over productive investment and worker welfare.

The gig economy replaces stable employment with precarious, low-benefit, short-term jobs that undermine labor rights.

What are your thoughts? Will we adapt again to get more use out of our free market systems? One area I think has been grossly underutilized is anti-trust laws that we currently have on the books. There have been MANY times in our recent past where M&A was allowed to proceed where in the past it never would have happened as a result of creating entities with monopoly powers.

What did Germany do? Therein resides your answer. Late-stage capitalism is not only subject to the propaganda of Communist agitation of the poorer masses, but its natural defense is to morph into fascism where a socialist state is provided by the industrial/corporate elite to secure the threat that communism poses. The State becomes the rallying point that disguises the designs of the corporate overlords and makes it seem like the country is united rather than exploited. Support the state and the state supports you. Question things and find out exactly how much your freedom has been eroded.

Freedom is essential to free markets. When insufficiently maintained with a balance of risk and opportunity it succeeds. But as the winners become more powerful, they use wealth to avoid risk rather than exploring opportunities. The creativity begins to give way to planned obsolescence, and perks are sought to ensure the winners stay the same. Competition and opportunity suffer, and we wind up where we are currently. Meanwhile, in a world that never ceased to be competitive resources become the primary objective of both business and the state. That means war. War raises productivity if you are winning and eliminates excess workforce. And the rich get richer. You will note that at the end of WWII that Porsche, Mercedez, Nissan, Toyota, Mitsubishi, and the German and italian aircraft manufacturers and ship builders all lived on under changed names, all remained viable as corporations. Only governments and people were destroyed. The wealthy lived on.

So you ask about late stage capitalism? Well we have two political parties in the U.S. both bent on a fascist approach to governance. The Republican version is at least peculiar to the U.S. while the Democratic version is more in tune with the E.U.. I just domestic imbalance over the foreign one!

Yes Germany went the socialist route with a Fascist controlled government. I don’t trust either party and you’re right that both want greater control. What makes me think the risk is greater for a Marxist revolution vs a fascist one coming about is who would be the charismatic leader to bring it about. Trump is the closest thing to a charismatic populist to morph us into fascism. But I don’t think Trump would do this. Dems sure don’t have a charismatic populist to pull it off.