Perhaps when make a similar comment in future you could expand a bit and sketch out a possible alternative to that of people being free to to trade things of value with other people under the aegis of a dynamic regulatory system? I guess you mean a specific meaning of 'capitalism' but the nature of that is not clear at all.
Option 1: the definition of "capitalism" requires that zero regulation be applied. In that case, abandon "capitalism" and replace it with whatever you'd call the same model but with regulation.
Option 2: a significant amount of regulation actually is enough alone to fatally destabilize capitalism. I do not believe this to be the case, but if it were, then it should very likely be abandoned, but it's difficult to know how other options might behave in this hypothetical universe.
I'm looking at this from an economics study view, not a public policy view.
Definitions have an inherently arbitrary component, sure. But stable, precise definitions are far easier to reason with than a shifting definition like "whatever the US is doing right now".
