All forms of economy will have their ups and downs, and even their recessions and perhaps even depressions from time to time. Even if the U.S. had had a true capitalist economy, which it hasn't had, but even if it did, there would still have been low spots, (which, of course, anti-capitalists would have called its "failing") So, the question that remains is, "Which form of economy is right for America?" And based on her founding principles of freedom and liberty, and the true meanings of "equality" and "unalienable rights," as defined by the founders of the nation... well, it's a free-market... (with well defined, and limited Federal interference, and where States are left to regulate only within their own borders, and then only to the extent that their citizenships allow them to, individually...) that is the only morally acceptable form of economy under the U.S. Constitution. (And we haven't had it.)
I would argue that the greatest "failures" that have occurred in American Capitalism, and the ones that have caused the deepest and most widespread suffering, or the most universal denial of opportunities, have happened when the people have allowed their system to stray from the principles of freedom and liberty, and attempts to regulate 'equality of outcome' or in other words to 'rig the game' are always done in the most well-intentioned, 'Robin Hood' type of way, and yet are never held accountable when they have INEVITABLY not only back-fired, but even at times ON PURPOSE, actually created a solution that was 180 degrees the opposite of what had been promised by its proponents, (and always exceedingly over budget.)
As it turns out, these proponents have typically been people who, in action, if not in intention, have sought power over their peers, and have gained it, and have redefined what is meant by the word "unfair."
I would even be willing to let them have the word. I could then concede that Capitalism is "unfair," but it is however the least UNJUST of all systems that mankind has been able to put into practice, and the most durable, and the one that has demonstrated the most sustained average growth, leaving the poor of today living better than the poor, and at times better than the rich, of yesterday. (And yes, there most certainly ARE rich and poor in Socialism and Communism, but their attempts at "fairness" usually lock the privileged even more assuredly into their privileges, and the impoverished more assuredly into their poverty )
How is it possibly more just for a Hugo Chavez, and his ilk, to live like they do, and to be the deciders of who gets to live like them, while the rest of their potentially wealthy, but in reality squalid country doesn't, than for the market itself to (on average) leave the supposedly "most deserving" types of questions to the entire collective (if you will) of everyone else living and working in that market? No kingmakers, no dictators, but everyone together, none of whose interests carry more weight than the other, to define what's "fair" and what isn't.
What is even more unfair, though, is to let the word Capitalism get redefined as if having anything to do with the types of crony, back-room, cartel, secret combination types of process that the true liberty and self-determination of a free market abhor.
If there is a more just system, it won't be a backwards step from free-market towards the involuntary confiscation of property and the denial of natural liberty that socialism offers, but a move forward, based on the immortal rights and the peace that Providence offers humanity, not the kind of rights and peace that men pretend to provide themselves.