Summarizing Shaikh's answer as to whether we've entered the stage of monopoly capitalism: Contrary to the standard Marxist and Keynesian explanations, "there is no evidence for systematic monopoly power at all." Then why did those schools come to believe it? Because they irrationally opposed orthodox economic textbooks which begin from real competition. That presumes that Friedman's model of competition is the only valid one and that Marx shares that model! Empirically, however, scale has no impact on the profitability of firms (only on their volatility). And capitalism is not a settled oligarchy, but an on-going antagonism - a war between mafias, not a Fukuyama-choreographed ballet.
Actually scale has an impact on profitability. It reduces the profit rate since output is mostly linked to labor and with a higher capital to labor ratio, the surplus to capital ratio and hence the profit rate is reduced. The firm might have a higher profit margin (p-c/p) because scale reduces cost, it will however reduce the profit rate since capital is increased.
There is a common phrase that is used throughout modern economic textbooks when they talk about contemporary theory-- Ceteris Paribus. This means 'all else being equal'. This guy doesn't seem to understand that, so he instead assumes that the contemporary view is not just incomplete, but entirely wrong because it supposedly assumes that human beings are only concerned with things and that outside dynamics and social factors play no role. Actually, it is widely acknowledged by everyone that they do play a role, and often a significant one-- it's just that the theory is to be applied when these things are controlled for, to the extent they are controlled for, or that they are more applicable when other factors have a relatively minor role. This is useful, especially in accounting for averages. In fact, controlling for various factors is what makes scientific analysis of anything possible.
Summarizing Shaikh's answer as to whether we've entered the stage of monopoly capitalism: Contrary to the standard Marxist and Keynesian explanations, "there is no evidence for systematic monopoly power at all." Then why did those schools come to believe it? Because they irrationally opposed orthodox economic textbooks which begin from real competition. That presumes that Friedman's model of competition is the only valid one and that Marx shares that model! Empirically, however, scale has no impact on the profitability of firms (only on their volatility). And capitalism is not a settled oligarchy, but an on-going antagonism - a war between mafias, not a Fukuyama-choreographed ballet.
Orthodox economic textbooks begin from perfect competition and those schools rationally use this conception.
Actually scale has an impact on profitability. It reduces the profit rate since output is mostly linked to labor and with a higher capital to labor ratio, the surplus to capital ratio and hence the profit rate is reduced. The firm might have a higher profit margin (p-c/p) because scale reduces cost, it will however reduce the profit rate since capital is increased.
There is a common phrase that is used throughout modern economic textbooks when they talk about contemporary theory-- Ceteris Paribus. This means 'all else being equal'. This guy doesn't seem to understand that, so he instead assumes that the contemporary view is not just incomplete, but entirely wrong because it supposedly assumes that human beings are only concerned with things and that outside dynamics and social factors play no role. Actually, it is widely acknowledged by everyone that they do play a role, and often a significant one-- it's just that the theory is to be applied when these things are controlled for, to the extent they are controlled for, or that they are more applicable when other factors have a relatively minor role. This is useful, especially in accounting for averages. In fact, controlling for various factors is what makes scientific analysis of anything possible.