But selling stuff that doesn't do what you claim is fraud, isn't it? And this crisis is proof that it's very possible in fettered capitalism as well. The difference is that those responsible get away with it. This should really have been handled the same way as the enron scandal was handled.

Allowing the government to regulate pharmaceuticals doesn't automatically make them any safer either. It's just a transfer of responsibility from the seller to the government. The seller no longer has to care what he sells as long as it's approved by the government. And the government seldom takes responsibility either so now there is no one to blame when something does go wrong. This also opens a pandoras box allowing for pharmaceutical special interests to influence the regulations to their benefit.

I also think people underestimate the ability of the market to set certain standards. Things such as licenses for different professions (doctors, teachers etc.) was originally an invention of the marketplace. People don't want surgery without proof that the surgeon knows what he's doing. I think we will be a lot better of if all regulatory businesses are competitive rather than monopolized.

I think the problem is that people are looking for the perfect regulations. In order for that to happen the regulators would have to be all-knowing and non-corruptable, which just isn't the case. Regulators are humans as well, and they regulate in their own self-interest, not in the best interest of society. The notion of good politics is an illusion. Once you allow government regulations it never stops. The beurocracy and corruption just keep on growing until you end up with a crisis like today.