i object to "late stage capitalism" as a term. it is marxist, and inaccurate. "late stage" implies a progress through economic situations (a marxist idea, the first third of the communist manifesto is marx talking about the "progression" over history). i reject this entirely -- an economy or politic will tend to 'level off' as people adjust to it, though most situations ever are 'levelling off' because politics and economics is always changing, not in the marxist progressive way, but more in a chaotic cyclical way. there are only so many ways to structure fundamental human nature, and generally people only push for whatever form they think would benefit them most, usually by power or money. "capitalism" is a lie too -- you do not live under capitalism when 50% of the gdp is government spending (e.g. france). the bureaucracy and its government-backed corruption has far too much influence to call this "capitalism". additionally, "capitalism" is a lie: it is no strict system in the way communism or socialism is, but the result of basic rules ("keep your word and don't steal") applied to individuals who are more or less free. it is therefore the default, in absence of massive government intervention, rather than a "system" in itself. look into monopolies and you will find most are backed by the government in one way or other, usually by regulations that stop new competitors. e.g. licensing, or burdensome regulations that small companies cannot afford to comply with. licensing is de-facto a monopoly of whoever can get a license against those who can't. see places like nyc where taxi-licenses are strictly limited and have become absurdly expensive, over a million dollars, where under "capitalism" there would be no other obstacle to your potential taxi business than whether you can find customers who want to buy your services.
Australia