> I'm saying one doesn't need to offer alternatives in order to state that $THING might have downsides Which is a completely reasonable and true point! And it'

> I'm saying one doesn't need to offer alternatives in order to state that $THING might have downsides Which is a completely reasonable and true point! And it's a rhetorical pattern that, if we could assume noble intent more often, would be way more popular. However, unfortunately, when people act in bad faith, the reasonable expression "x has problems" can have the subtext "we should use [popular alternative y] instead". This is the case with supporters of socialism and communism - "capitalism is bad" is not used in order to try to improve the regulatory mechanisms around capitalism (which, as other people have pointed out, are absolutely necessary), but in order to try to drum up support for their favored economic system instead. The pattern that consistently appears is that people who are trying to improve or draw attention to the regulatory landscape around capitalism consistently talk about regulations (e.g. focusing on the FAA's lack of oversight over Boeing, or old environmental regulations that were revoked under a recent administration), and the people who are trying to advance another agenda instead throw out lines to the effect of "capitalism bad" or "this is the result of capitalism".