> Solely moving assets within the system does not create growth of the entire system.
This is completely false. As I've pointed out elsewhere, the possibility of trading existing assets means that one entity (say, a farm) can produce more of a good (say, rice) than it can directly consume. Without exchanging goods, this would make no sense, specialization of labor would be lost, and the production of all types of goods would crater.
That's still a micro perspective; and besides, the farm is creating goods, rather than operating in a zero-sum manner, it is adding product to the system. Whereas the labour of individuals does not operate in this manner, and it is possible for a system of individuals to be working feverishly without meaningful change occurring. The author used the example of regulators and compliance officers as a sort of off-hand way of expressing the kind of relationship where the bulk of the labour within the system cancels itself out because it arises from agents having to respond to the actions of one another, and doesn't necessarily increase overall utility.
This is completely false. As I've pointed out elsewhere, the possibility of trading existing assets means that one entity (say, a farm) can produce more of a good (say, rice) than it can directly consume. Without exchanging goods, this would make no sense, specialization of labor would be lost, and the production of all types of goods would crater.