Except said consumers would first need the means of production, which can be denied or unrealistic to acquire in any remotely competetive way once you have even a mildly developed capitalistic system, let alone the massive concentration of wealth and market power we are looking at today. You'd also need to find a way to make a relevant number of other customers aware of the advantages of your product. That can prove impossible in a system where media content also is dictated by profit motives.

Well I never said it was easy. It still happens, though. Every day. What other system would you propose we replace it with? Government intervention? Will we have more input if all the factories are owned by the government?

That certainly couldn't be considered autonomous capitalism, though?

Yeah, I'm not sure where you or artis are getting the idea that I'm saying you can't interfere with capitalism. What I'm saying is that it mostly operates on its own. You don't need some government official to decide how many staples need to be made or what they need to be made of. This is good, because when production becomes mandated by government action rather than incentivized by profit motives that production is no longer under the influence of the pressures of capitalism.

I don't, anywhere, argue that capitalism can't be interfered with. My argument is that it mostly does its job on its own. Do we have to clean up after it and step in where it falls short? Absolutely. But it's still more efficient than government-controlled resource production and distribution.

From the perspective of preserving our planet's ressources, including its ability to sustain a decent population of human beings a few decades from now, wouldn't it maybe be better to accept that strawberries are a fruit which we don't expect to find / eat in colder climates or times of the year?

What makes you think we can't safely ship out of season fruit? We're not deciding between strawberries in the winter and a ruined environment. That's absolutely 100% not the case.

Wouldn't it make more sense to accept that those sheep will be more expensive to raise in the UK than in NZ instead of accepting the enviromental cost of shipping them? If the UK workers are not forced to compete with those half a planet away, chances are that their wages will buy that more expensive wool.

Nope. It's not just an economic expense, it's also an environmental expense. England doesn't have the sort of grazing land that NZ does. It takes more actual resources, not just dollars, to raise lamb in England.

It doesn't get bread to everybody's house, though, does it?

Right, and this is why said I support things like universal basic income and regulatory bodies like the FDA. You don't just take vanilla capitalism and leave it on its own, you use it as a base to build other services around.

I don't really buy "technology is going to save us". The technologies we keep comming up with to work around our "limited ressources" problems seem to tend towards the environmentally destructive.

Your fears of over population and resource scarcity have been debunked. Please see the Simon-Ehrlich wager. Technology already has saved us, in terms of limited resources. Not only did the price of that basket of goods not go up, it went down.

Now we just have to make sure we don't destroy the environment.

In a capitalist world, when it comes down to it, there is one code which matters. "Pay / not pay". Capital doesn't care if it is accumulated by selling drugs, by profiteering from war (which may or may not be helped into existence so said profiteering can take place), by exploiting people who are not in an economic position to argue or simply by being born into the right family, golden spoon in hand. Yet in capitalism, capital is power over people. I strongly disagree with the notion that the successful aquisition of capital justifies that power.

What country do you think operates on unfettered capitalism? Certainly not the United States or any of the EU nations. Developed nations tend to have some forms of social services, even if they're not as extensive as we might like. Even in the US, there isn't a single state where you can't apply for food stamps.

Furthermore, what would you suggest as an alternative? Once again, let's make sure, before going forward, though, that you realize I'm not talking about unfettered capitalism.