It's a matter of perspective I suppose, albeit an important on. If capitalism is autonomous then every single government action that affects the market place becomes an intervention with the proponents needing to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that it is justified and provides overwhelming benefits no matter how small the impact on the market. A lot like what some people are trying to achieve in the US now. On the other hand if capitalism is a tool, even if the default one applied to the marketplace, then minor retoolings just need to be "likely better". I strongly disagree based on simple observation. Consumers have no power but to choose between the options offered (including the default of "neither"). If no business is willing to make efficiency a non-premium feature then the only choice is between affordable and efficient. There are feedback loops of course but businesses are free to ignore them, up to and including stopping production of the relecabt product if they believe that it can't be profitable and satisfy consumer demands. Consumers are a selective force. Furthermore sometimes consumers are a blindingly stipid selective force with regards to long term issues and will not select the option that is better for all of us in the long run. Hence setting goals. I'd have to say I disagree with capitalism not being mostly autonomous. As long as you're remedying situations where excessive power protects certain businesses from market forces
As far as setting goals, I'd say consumers mostly do that.