I'm not so sure assigning nature based equilibrium, to a man made concept is entirely fitting. Since we seem to be ignoring, actually encouraging, introducing perturbations into the *environment* of capitalism, which are deliberately influencing the economy in an unbalancing capacity.
Although, it's fair to say that chaos theory exists, within natural settings that have little or no dramatic shifts that would seem to introduce or attract such. The chaos that can and does exist in nature isn't a purposeful introduction or purposeful manipulation of the resources and life within the system, with a goal in mind. It is chaos, for chaos' sake. Ascribing an *environment* to capitalism suggests a natural order, with changes due to periodic fluctuations and chaos, devoid of intent. Intent is where any comparison or perceived similarities see the two diverge from likeness. Intent is control. The ability to manipulate the environment for desired results. Volcano's, tsunamis, epidemics, hurricanes, floods, drought, asteroids, comets, out of control fires, enormous solar flares, an exploding star to close to our solar system, mass extinction, ect., ect. have control over us whether we like it or not...THAT by proxy can affect capitalism and that's as close to *natural* as the concept overlaps. Everything else, the structure, the intricacy, the chaos, is the manipulation of the concept for a desired result.
In our current capitalistic environment there is an intentional restructuring of the system. A purposeful, mindful manipulation of the system that is creating chaos, for a preferred goal. Any depicted similarities between capitalism and an *environment*, is again, wishing to assign neutral naturalistic forces ( as when *market forces* are attributed nature like qualities) to a human made, human controlled concept of commerce. There is no impartiality of the *free market* at work here. It is anything but. What we have, at the moment, are lions eating gazelles, not because they're hungry, not because they need to to survive, but simply because they can. The more, the merrier. They can't get enough. One gazelle isn't enough, lets kill 10, 15. They're life sustaining meat will rot by not being consumed and we sure as hell won't be letting the other meat eaters have any, but who cares. We'll keep taking it, because we can. Not because we need to...but because we can.
There is no over arching need to accumulate so much against the overall *environments* benefit. There is no impersonal, naturalistic behavior of nonaligned/unbiased *forces* at work. It is simply out of control greed attempting to morally justify itself, through a perversion of individual freedoms, where the wants of the one, outweigh the needs of the many. (pointy eared, green blooded hobgoblin respects to Mr. Spock)
Well see, that's interesting too. You don't see economics as a system, but more like chaos. And of course, if you have chaos, you need someone or some thing to establish order. So clearly within your worldview, there really isn't such thing as "market forces" or Smith's invisible hand. It's all anarchy of strong against weak until someone comes in and does something about it.
I'm not sure where you are going with the statement, "a perversion of individual freedoms." You've dropped hints that liberty is at best a secondary consideration when it comes to what's an important social good. I'm just not sure how far you go with that. Is that something you're still working out or do you know and don't want to say?
Oh, and by the 3rd movie they had completely dropped the idea of the needs of the many...blah blah blah.
