I generally tend towards Hayek in thinking that the market is an amazingly useful creation, and one that we tinker with at our peril. But on the other hand, the

I generally tend towards Hayek in thinking that the market is an amazingly useful creation, and one that we tinker with at our peril. But on the other hand, there are some that become successful whist contributing nothing to the greater good - no innovation, no efficiency - and just succeed at being better hoarders of wealth. > academics who have never built a business, hired employees When I see this type of argument made I often think a. as if someone else wouldn't have come along and created/serviced the market sooner or later, yet we heap praise upon the person that happened to get there first and b. the wider benefits are really just happy side-effects - if a business's costs could be lowered by automating all tasks and employing zero staff, wouldn't it be compelled by capitalism to do so? If it's employment we want, we can just follow Keynes and employ people to bury money and dig it up again..