Subramanian Swamy is wrong again

This is the letter to the Editor, The Hindu, I sent on 17.10.2008. It certainly won't be published. Hence this posting:
Sir,
In “An agenda for long-term stability” (Oct. 16), Subramanian Swamy argues that occasional financial crises are necessary to purge toxins from the market-economy system and suggests a few interventional reforms to resolve the present crisis and prevent future crises. He closes this discourse with a political remark that those reforms require “a new government with a new mandate”.
To take his economics alone seriously: his model market is that of the U.S., which is a product of Reaganism of the early 1980s, a fundamentalist vision of capitalism that believed in ‘leaving the market alone to regulate itself’. Even after intervening with the ‘bailout’ plan, President Bush announced that it was intended not to kill free market but to save it. Is Swamy also advocating a ‘regulated free market’, which is but an oxymoron?
There are other problems as well. The present crisis, the last and the worst in a series of crises in a short span of time, proves that market economy is an extremely volatile system. But Swamy claims that economic theory is now developed to such a level of sophistication that it can even predict and prevent crises. How come then that it failed in the present crisis?
Swamy says that market economy, like human body, needs occasional treatment to cure ailments. So, like human body, market economy too will perish eventually, whatever the treatment. And even a ‘long-term’ cure can go only that far and no farther, whether it is a new government or a new mandate.