Is Late Capitalism the Right Way to Describe Our Economy?

I'm hearing the term "late capitalism" more and more often these days, probably starting a few years ago, and the term has irked me from the very beginning. I'd like to explain why I don't like the term, particularly in its modern usage.

Firstly, the word "late" is extremely conceited, as if those who use the term know that this is a later, or even final, form of capitalism (and if you're a Marxist, this applies especially to you). This is a complete absurdity. This term is rarely used by those who would be in any position to actually venture an even educated guess about this question (social scientists, who still, nonetheless, wouldn't have much confidence in their guess). We could, for all we know, really just be in the beginning of capitalism, and acting as if you are privy to the imminent failure of our economic order seems, to me, to be silly.

Secondly, there isn't much that actually distinguishes "late" capitalism from its earlier incarnations. To quote from Wikipedia, here is how "late capitalism" is used now:

 "Late capitalism" has become a catch-all term for various phenomena that express capitalism's distortions of human life, and it is often used in critique and satire. This usage also conveys a sense that contemporary capitalism cannot go on like it does forever - simply because the problems created by business are getting too large and unmanageable.

The thing is, what about contemporary capitalism is really that different than the economic system of our forebears? Not much. The things that seem so absurd and unsustainable now have been features of capitalism, though waxing and waning, from its inception. Gross and absurd inequality, monopolization and cartels, economic rents from influence peddling and government contracts, undue dominance of the economy by financial interests and capital holders, are all the primary features of "late capitalism", they also happen to prominent features of "capitalism". 

Most students of history can point to virtually all of these pathologies of capitalism occurring well before the modern period. Whether it was the Corn Laws in England, the Robber Barons, the Trusts of the late 19th and early 20th century, or the incredible income inequality and financial speculation of the late 1920s. The things that are breaking our economy, and to some extent our lives, have been phenomena that naturally occur under capitalism. They have been ameliorated in the past, and I think its naive to think they can't be addressed now (I would add that socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Scandinavia has capitalist economies).

And finally, the absurdity of modern capitalism is hardly novel either. What's the difference between Goop and the snake oil salesmen of the past? Businesses trying to innovate and doing badly at it (like banks opening coffee shops, Juicero, etc), and businesses trying to rip people off, are neither new nor novel, and acting like they are is just a way to flatter yourself. 

All this doesn't mean that features of the modern economy aren't novel. A lot of the problems we have are unprecedented in the post war era, particularly income/wealth inequality. We also have what appear to be epic challenges with housing and healthcare. But I think if I could describe what is wrong with our particular brand of capitalism, I would call it corporate capitalism, as our economy seems to be run by, and increasingly for, corporations and their owners. Is this that different than the trusts of the past? I doubt it. But it has been institutionalized to significant degree, with what I think I likely very detrimental effects to the economy and the public good. So if you need a quippy name that encapsulates our contemporary economy and its failures, I think "corporate capitalism" is a lot better than "late".