Here's a direct quote from the article:

"From the miners to the factory workers to the truck drivers to the smelters to the architects of the factories to the executives that run the companies that fund and organize each step of the process, each and every participant is in the game for his own self interest—to make a living, and to make a contribution that's really only a tiny part of the end result of a product, even one as insignificant as the humble pencil. Pan back until you've framed the entire world economy, and it's hard not to marvel at the wonder and miracle of capitalism's invisible hand."

You want to tell me I'm making stuff up now?

"The difference between a government's central planning and the company is that the company have to trade something to get anything done."

"While the company may in fact central plan part of their operation, the fact is, the bricks must be traded for something else. The steel, the workers, and everything have to also occur by trade."

"This is something that cannot happen by mere "central planning". Each individuals, must decide what will benefit them the most. After all, they could go do something else in the economy that need urgent attention."

OK, you tell me: if you're the guy who lives in a slum in Bolivia and works for slave wage in a tin mine, to what other aspect of the economy can you devote your urgent attention? And, with the lowest GDP on the continent, what are you, your employer or your country getting in return for that resource to make it a worthwhile trade?

EDIT: I see it now. I can see how you might interpret it as that.

In any case, it is doubtful that people care about furthering the glory of capitalism. I think the author is talking about the invisible hand rather than any specific noble cause.

"OK, you tell me: if you're the guy who lives in a slum in Bolivia and works for slave wage in a tin mine, to what other aspect of the economy can you devote your urgent attention? And, with the lowest GDP on the continent, what are you, your employer or your country getting in return for that resource to make it a worthwhile trade?"

What? I don't understand your question.

Surely the worker is mining tin so that he could eventually trade for food. The employer who are getting the tin can then eventually trade for something that they want, no?

There's always attention to devote to in an economy. After all, there's always the never ending needs and wants that must be satisfied and the limited amount of resource that can be devoted toward the unsatisfiable demand of men.

The question is not whether there's enough jobs but rather how the economy can reallocate resources correctly and efficently so that people can find work again.

If the resource allocation remain uncorrected(Examples include overpaying for labor which often happen when minimum wage are enforced), parts of the population may continues unemployed although they may be able or skilled enough to trade their labor on the market.

And, once again: you seem to think that people in places like Bolivian tin mines have options, that they can just move, or be moved, to something else at the drop of a hat. Reality ain't like that.

The existence of a bad situation does not imply that a given solution will make things better.

I note that hell-holes are usually associated with folks who are "doing things for the people".

And, in point of fact, they can "just move", unless someone is pointing a gun at them. That someone is almost always a govt.

"If the resource allocation remain uncorrected(Examples include overpaying for labor which often happen when minimum wage are enforced), parts of the population may continues unemployed although they may be able or skilled enough to trade their labor on the market."

It's very nice to criticize a system because a worker in Bolivia has it rough. You feel very good when you say "Something must be done!", but if by any chance you'd get any power all you'd do with this attitude would be to destroy. The current system works. It puts bread on the table of that Bolivian worker, and on pretty much everybody else's. If you want to change this you _must_ start by understanding the current system and its strengths and weaknesses. To try and replace it, or change it without understanding it can only end in ruin.

And if you look closer at that specific worker you may find interesting things. You may find for example that the reason mining is the only thing he can do is not due to capitalism, but because some local politician decided (much like you) that capitalism is not the way to go. And that the evil foreigners who only want money must be kept far away, and let in only on a leash. So the greedy foreigners can't come to that part of Bolivia and build a car factory which makes cheap Fords and Fiats because well, nobody really wants capitalists to make more money of their backs. So the poor miner keeps on going down into the mine every day.

Free trade is good for poor people. Globalization is good for poor people. Capitalism is good for poor people. When you see them failing, there's usually some politician who thinks that if he controls every aspect of the economy that's still called capitalism.

Now, get in line with all the "but communism was never really tried" folks.

Not surprisingly, it did not work very well. Regulations went as far as dictate the type of products which could be produced, by whom and with what technology. Any newcomer had to obtain licence first and start production later, and any company which had an advantage in inovation only was pretty dead from the start. The incumbents always fought tooth and nail to keep things as they are, and since they had the support of the state they usually succeeded. In one extreme case this meant the execution of 16,000 small entrepreneurs whose only crime was importing or manufacturing cotton cloth in violation of French law. (last sentence is copy paste from Wikipedia).

Now, again, except the state control the economic climate looked surprisingly like today. Which is why there are still countries that proclaim to be capitalist, even when in practice it's impossible to build a successful business without political support. The difference is not semantic, it is very real.

Try and google a bit for Hernando de Soto. I haven't found exactly what I was looking for, but this is ok: http://www.reason.com/news/show/32213.html

Has there ever been a time in recorded history when this was not generally true?