We’re not in the throes of late-stage capitalism; we’re living through the late stages and the death rattle of the post-1971 fiat system. Mistaking the two (and basing solutions or policies on this mistake) is a recipe for counterproductive interventions and missed opportunities.

Many, particularly those on the progressive left, refer to this state of affairs, this liminal phase, as “late-stage capitalism,” a phrase rooted in Marxism (but not coined by its founder).

Current events have only intensified the lament.

I think most of us understand the impulse here. The idea that something is fundamentally broken and that something fundamental must change is pervasive.

I think we’re mislabeling the moment and misdiagnosing its flaws because our language has not developed beyond Cold War binaries of capitalism and socialism, bourgeoisie and proletariat, workers and capitalists.

What we are currently witnessing is late-stage fiat.

Increasingly, a rising tide does not lift all boats. This is because the bottom 50% of boats are not exposed to the tide. They’re not even in the water because they don’t own assets. This has only gotten worse in recent decades.

The increasingly acute disparity is not the inevitable result of capitalism. Rather, it is the result of a fiat system in which those closest to, and exercising the most influence over, the rules of the monetary network reap the most benefits.

We flooded the economy with new money which, because of the Cantillon Effect, went first to the most creditworthy institutions and individuals, e.g., the wealthy, who then poured them back into assets, juicing the prices of those assets, which are disproportionately owned by the wealthy.

Offshoring [of labor] has only exacerbated wealth inequality.

The binary is not capitalism vs. socialism; It’s fiat vs. sound money.