its like criticizing religion, the new age religion: capitalism, it works as long as enough people believe in it :)

That is not true. This discussion here shows that it's not a taboo. Nobody will stop you from writing down ideas for a new economy and monetary system here - I'm quite sure of it.

And indeed something has to change, and the sooner the better for all. But at the same time it must be the right thing. Some alternatives, like for example central planning are actually much worse (current Venezuela might be a good example) or political corruption (see for example Greece in the past). So what do you propose? Without a concrete alternative there is not much to discuss.

On the other hand I think that capitalism will surely be an important part of any good alternative. The bankrupty of Lehman Brothers was a typical act for capitalism: you cannot always win and sometimes you fail. Without the risk to fail actually nobody will pay attention to risk control and smart investment. I wish the governments would have saved less banks and let more of them going down and I wish they would force them to have a higher percentage of own capital than required by the Basel III rules and sooner but apart from this capitalism is still very strong.

I see it personally like a knife. It's very useful but you can also kill with it. So use it wisely and set the right regulation like for example fight effectively tax evasion of big companies (Apple, Google, IKEA, Amazon, ...). Tame the beast and you will profit from it. The question for me is how to better tame capitalism, but I do not want to abolish it.

So, what do you want?

MY NUCLEAR PLANT ANALOGY IS BETTER !!!

Capitalism is fine, IF it breeds competition. As soon as it doesn't, and monopolism takes charge, in ANY form, Capitalism ceases to exist. That is the point at which we, in Canada, are at right now. The US is mostly saved from this but Canada sure isn't. We have 3 major media companies, 2 major food chain companies.. the list can go on but those are the big two. Food is going up in price, yet wages are decreasing. People are seeing the effects of monopolism, and the time to stop them is NOW.

nuclear is always better :)

nuclear laptop, nuclear pen, nuclear chair, nuclear lightbulb and nuclear pistole

Well, it would, because capitalism is freedom.

Capitalism is the ability to market the product of your own labor as you see fit, and sell it at the highest price you can negotiate. Whether you're programming computer games or digging ditches, capitalism only limits you to your own talents, abilities, and motivation.

Any other system would inherently have to be less free.

Screw capitalism! We need planned game development and state-owned game development studios!

The problem is, our system isn't capitalism, it's monopolism. Or it has BECOME that, by degrading our freedom to choose and instituting laws protecting companies against failure. "Capitalism" as we now know the word is a sham.

It may HAVE existed, in the minds of the people creating the constitution. But even they were beholden to rich land owners and their corporate overlords (Yes, there were corporations even back then). Our entire system is flawed, either way, and needs a change.

although, i'm not an expert in us history, but the time of president roosevelt in the usa after a big rezession before the second world war. this could be aproximately something like capitalism, but it did last for 5-20 years i think

Things are not as simple. There's a famous french quote pointing out that "between the strong and the weak, freedom oppresses and law liberates". Another way to say that the freedom of the ones is limited by the freedom of the others. Another way to say that there is no absolute freedom, as it always implies the freedom to restrict other freedoms. Another way to say that freedom cannot be, as a word, a pure abstract value in itself.

If you take "free market" in that absolute freedom perspective, the "free fight" will naturally lead to victors, losers, dominations, an most probably to advantages to those who "play dirty" (by which standards though, if "freedom" is the only value ?).

The state of monopoly (but also many other horrid consequences, such as insane inequalities, media controls, ecological cataclysms, profit-driven colonial wars, etc) is a consequence of such actual "freedom". And current political issues as often framed as "politics trying to restrict the sacrosanct freedom of market" (through "principles of precaution", through limitations to pollution, etc). Even anti-trust laws are "anti-freedom" as they restrict free choices of commercial strategies, alliances, etc. In the name of freedom of competition, or whatnot.

So, using this notion of "freedom" in such an absolute way as it is required to define "capitalism" as "maximized freedom" (maximum freedom for whom ?) necessarily leads to brutal contradictions. These levels of abstractions are not useful to evaluate societies or systems of exchanges.

I agree that we haven't had yet revolutionary alternatives that function (at least on today's unavoidable large scale). And that most debates should stay about the choices of fields and levels of restrictions within a generally "capitalist" system. But these restrictions will exist and be enforced, more or less explicitely or implicitely, more or less denounced or presented as "natural" and "unquestionnable", whatever the system. This word is really not a good angle to qualify the different policies available.

It's mostly purely rhetorical, and, as such, pretty dangerously instrumentalizable.

Yup. The corporations pissed off the people by laying off millions, the people reacted. Unfortunately, after WW2 the corporations were so large that they could literally do whatever they wanted to. And thus, our system today, where one or two companies might get in "trouble" but the real dangerous ones are lurking in the background, slowly eroding freedoms and slowly instituting themselves into our highest positions of government and insulating themselves from the public and any recrimination.
Exactly. Maximum freedom.. for the producer. The consumer? Where is his freedom if there is no freedom of choice?

DON'T DENY THEM THE FREEDOM TO DO SO, you liberticide commie !

i can't think of something else :)