It manufactures unemployment, or so says an old friend. The argument is not much more than what he describes as the agreeable Luddite one: that there is a perpetual pressure to cut costs and raise profits. “Unregulated capitalism”, whatever that is, races to eliminate employees. (How much more there is to the argument is hard to say, since the posting has become non-public.)

One response to such profundity is to match it with the observation that this looks at only one side of the coin. Capitalist economies also manufacture employment. (Few people hire others out of altruism. Few people can build lots of stuff without others’ help.) They also manufacture stuff. Lots and lots of stuff, which people want to buy. (Few people give others tons of stuff out of altruism.) When unnecessary costs are cut, customers and shareholders benefit.

The system is obviously in constant change, only roughly stable, and is unlikely to ever converge to a steady state some might idolize, where some economic status quo simply persists. In order to force a utopian order, it would require a level of control and force that would be familiar to those who studied totalitarian states. And there is no other endpoint possible. At any intermediate state, there will be some perceived “social injustice” that requires more force to “solve”. People who promote just a little more regulation should be expected to state their ultimate end-point: what is the maximum power for the state beyond which they would not advocate.

(The dual situation exists with us laissez-faire types. I would like a smaller state, less control, less competition with the private sector. How much less? A good first step would be balancing the darned government budgets.)