In an ideal way, no. In a practical way, where unemployment and profits are minimized and there is a lot of competition, sure. I think it's fair to say it's not realistic, and that's to a large degree because companies distort the market in an attempt to form monopolies, cartels, and other things to form situations where arbitrage is nearly guaranteed.

Ideally we could minimize this, but something else called regulatory capture makes this very difficult. Even if we can't have perfect competition, saying we need higher/better profits to reduce employment is still incorrect according to just about any economic theory I've heard of. Money needs to flow through an economy, not get bottled up so some big shot CEO can buy another jet or some baby boomers can feel good about their 401k (*even if it tanks in a decade or so).

*There's a very good talk on cspan here about how liberal economists in the 70s perpetuated they myth that the stock price is all that matters, which is a very easy idea to co-opt in a negative fashion. I'll see if I can dig it up.