Stages of Capitalism

Although the broader terms - Competitive, Monopoly, and Global capitalism - are handy short hands for the periods, I dislike the simplistic labeling since it ignores the influence of finance and the focus on risk, especially externalized risk. The definitions are too much dependent upon class distinctions and class warfare concepts.

Quick and dirty: 
We have progressed through different forms of capitalism during the 20th: laissez faire or competitive capitalism up to the turn of the century. This period ends with the breakup of Standard Oil and the advent of monopoly capitalism.

The goal of monopoly capitalism shifts from better costs and pricing (competitive capitalism) to controlling market share. Standard Oil, for example, was often not interested in making a profit in a region, but in driving out competition.

Monopoly Capitalism

Monopoly capitalism has a political component, of course, that makes the domestic political arena a battleground between large corporate interests and unions.

Global Capitalism
After 1945, but especially after 1970, we moved to global capitalism, and the primary goal changed to influencing political structures not only within the country but other (supposedly sovereign) nations.

We have seen capitalism mature and change over the last century from laissez faire to monopoly capitalism; and then to global capitalism. 
In each stage, we've seen the primary goal change and supercede previous goals from competitive pricing to market share to controlling governments, respectively.

State Capitalism
The next stage may be state capitalism, which seems to be the goal of the right in the US, imitating the 'controlled economy' of China and Asian countries.

It remains to be seen if mixed economies - social democracy - can compete. But one thing is certain: Economies which do not compete in the new arenas will not lead or succeed.

The same shift put transnational companies and MNCs in a position to dictate to governments at all levels of development - developing, peripheral (the PIGS, for example), and developed - legal structures; while simultaneously destroying manufacturing within the country. (There is a growing debate that the Germans may have gotten it right here.) 

Tax cuts are meaningless in a developed country. Tax cuts mean large deficits and long term debt. Reagan, Bush 41 and 43 have demonstrated that clearly and repeatedly - but nothing will stop blind ideologues from the fantasies. 

For peripheral and un-developed countries, they can lure industry to the country for a while, but it's a gamble. Ireland and Spain just lost in a big way. History tells us most countries lose this gamble.