and neither does the article that was referenced. A closer read will show what I also agree with and that is "Social Programs" are needed, due to what I call the "collateral damage" wreaked on society (e.g. sudden rises and falls of enterprises...layoffs...cost control measures that repress wages...etc.). Not everyone, especially those in the middle and lower classes, can put away sufficient funds to meet all challenges throughout their lives (not everyone can be a well paid CEO with a compensation package "approved" by 'Compensation Consultants' who just happen to be hired by the corporate board chosen by that CEO). The only entity that can keep those people from falling into abject poverty is "government", which enacts and administrates those social programs.
Here's another quote from that article..."Instability and uncertainty are nerve-racking. The market competition that drives innovation and efficiency is a wrecking ball that leaves some among us sifting through the rubble, all the time. For those of us iiving paycheck to paycheck, and that's most of us, it's scary. Capitalism creates wealth by setting up a contest for profits that necessarily creates a steady stream of losers."
Do you acknowledge this view?