It's not a religion, because it is not based on faith. It consistently delivers results whether its practitioners believe in it or not.
Perhaps. Whether those are the results intended are another matter qv. Enron and many more.
Edit: Then again, it depends on what you mean by capitalism. If you mean as generally practiced my criticism stands but if you mean pricing that reflects all aspects inc. externalities rather than ignoring them (as with fossil fuel use) then I'd agree. Which do you mean?
No doubt about it. Look around you, all the stuff in your dwelling, etc., all from capitalism.
> Enron
Enron made its hay from taking advantage of California's regulation of consumer electricity prices, and the inability of the regulators to adapt.
The value of those things depends on whether they were produced in ways that takes externalities into consideration ie. I fear we're destroying the ecosystem to create those.
You haven't made clear where you stand on that, and it's crucial to understanding each others positions. I'd be grateful if you'd address that.
re. enron, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron#2001_Accounting_scandals:
"Enron used a variety of deceptive, bewildering, and fraudulent accounting practices and tactics to cover its fraud in reporting Enron's financial information"
That doesn't fit in with what you said.
Sure. I propose that externalities (like pollution) be taxed, in order to "internalize the externalities".
> That doesn't fit in with what you said.
That refers to the accounting. I was referring to their manipulation of prices, which was only made possible by California's fixing of consumer electricity rates.
As for accounting fraud, that's illegal and not free market.
Many also cling to the false dichotomy between capitalism and "soviet russia / north korea / venezuela"
Capitalism is the only hope of fending off environmental disaster, because it is the only system capable of producing the surplus needed to deal with it. When people are starving, they lose all interest in anything but their next meal, regardless of how they get it.
For example, the US was the first to clean up its waterways, and this is because the surplus generated by capitalism made it fairly easy.
Among the most capitalistic and consumerist societies (e.g. US) the pollution is staggering.
Interpreting results comes from evidence, not faith. One constructs a theory based on evidence. One tests the theory by seeing if future evidence behaves like the theory suggests.
Religion isn't like that, it does not predict things in a way that is testable. Creationism, for example, makes zero predictions and so is not at all testable, making it a faith, not science.
> Do you accept it as a useful economic system given all the problems you see with it?
Yes. Without question. Look around you - all the goodies you have were created by capitalism.
> Are you willing to entertain the possibility of alternatives? If not, why?
All the alternatives proposed have a historical record of being worse, often far worse.
This is also why corporations don't grow without limit - they become constricted by bureaucracy and unable to adapt, and smaller, nimbler outfits pick them off.
I guarantee you won't discover anything superior to "the west" unless you acknowledge the many things it has gotten right.
What do you or anybody else gain from that? If I'm just responding to a troll account then I guess that's on me. But if not, please explain your motivations. Why are you publishing far-out opinions and then lashing out when disagreed with? It's exactly how anti-vax advocates and flat-earthers behave.