While I don’t doubt your intentions (if I did, I would not engage), what you propose sounds more thaumaturgical than scientific.

“Appropriate?”

“Minimum?”

That those things should be “established,” who could disagree? I certainly don’t. But where is the deus ex machina that will make this happen? The claim is commonly attributed to Pareto that it’s the market, sort of like Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” I take that to be the stereotypically capitalist position, but one that few would take seriously in our times.

An autocrat could decide either from a populist or a military power base, but either way the decisions would be enforced by government. Most people would not want to go there, stereotypical socialism, either.

In the US, in Western Europe, in all the places called the First World during the Cold War, government regulation of these numbers intervenes when they get extremely out of whack as determined democratically — and governments get it wrong from time to time because the people get it wrong from time to time.

When the problem gets worse rather than better, does a government back off or double down? That’s the nub in a mixed economy and it seems to me it reflects the struggle between democracy and autocracy that remains after the Cold War.

You write a series of passive voice statements with which no sane person would disagree and call “establishing” those outcomes a “capitalist solution.” Until you reveal the actor doing the establishing, I call it a magical solution.

I guess whether you can call it “semantics” depends on your tolerance for ambiguity. Either way, I’m not hostile to the outcomes you advocate, so if you don’t think further discussion is fruitful, I’m OK with that. “Winning” is not on my agenda. The fact that nobody else has dived in is a strong indication that you are correct.