If he's talking about economic stasis, let's give it a go:
1) Economics are the monetary interactions of a given society, subgroup, population, etc
2) stasis refers to not just stagnation, but a complete lack of change
3) total lack of change at a meta-scale like a society only exists in totalitarian societies
4) in the case of total economic stasis, you would need a command economy/controlled economy
5) in the scenario of a command economy, some of the people involved in the economy would fundamentally need to be oppressed
6) therefore, regardless of any moral or ethical judgements, a totally static economy would be inhibiting of the liberty of any given individual participating in it
Now, that said, there are many things to be gained by limiting what people are allowed to do. By the same course of logic you could argue that all laws are incompatible with liberty, since technically the government is trying to force you not to kill people, for instance. Obviously that is still to the benefit of society even if you personally have one fewer option. At this point it comes down to the fact that laws and regulations, when done correctly, can increase the number of practical/feasible options available to a populace, even though they technically restrict some of the options that would cause a society to fall apart. People can accomplish more in groups than they could on their own due to the options of specialization and parallelizing work becoming viable when they have restrictive agreements to cooperate. That's the whole point of companies.
So this is IMO a case of him being technically correct while still not making a very deep or substantial point in the overall context.