Yes, I see what you're saying. The points you're making here are deeper than the ones I make in this article, because I'm granting certain economic assumptions for the sake of argument. It's an embarrassment of riches when it comes to criticizing mainstream economics, isn't it? So this is a question of emphasis. This article just follows up on some points I made in previous ones in this series. It's not meant to be a comprehensive takedown.

But you're right that the neoclassical assumption that economies can be compared to Newtonian systems is dubious. Indeed, from my limited readings, some heterodox economists use dynamical systems theory to model those asymmetries and instabilities you referred to. This was Keynes' point, and it's implicit in Schumpeter's theory of business cycles.

But capitalism must be promoted as inherently stable for economists to have any chance of pleasing the plutocrats who benefit most from "deregulation," and of reassuring the public that the myth of modern progress isn't a harebrained scheme.