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.