What's funny about this opinion of his, however true it is or feels, is that it strikes me, form my naive armchair, as something that's been obvious or obviously coming for a while.

I remember having "shooting the piss" conversations in the 2000s about how big corps would become the "new nations", which is dumb and simplistic but still touches what could very well be an essential truth ... that when an ecosystem of massive corps, with monopolies, near-monopolies or oligopolies, becomes ingrained, the dynamic they create comes to dominate the so called markets they and we are supposed to operate in. And so you quickly/easily get "grey-letter law" and "too big to fail" institutions.

If there's anything to this, which I suspect is the case, then it becomes strange that it's what, one popular/public economist talking about it? Whether you're left or right, it's conspicuous and problematic, and surely it's middle-class centrists, those who are effectively "citizens" of the fiefdoms, or "super-serfs" if you will, who are relatively highly employable and well networked in the major big-corp employment networks and so doing well in the system, that don't quite notice it or care that it might be a wider problem.