Given that pushers financiers control the drug money supply, and will always have the most power in any capitalist system, and that governments can always be bought or lobbied, is it realistic to expect governments to hold on to regulatory power?

Or will it always and inevitably be eroded in favour of the financiers?

1.  Perhaps it's come up in some of the economics-focused diaries I don't read, but could you provide some examples of how the term "Capitalism" has been irresponsibly used in a serious diary or comment?  I'm just a bit confused, because I find debates about the nuances of systems of economics and governance far outnumber "strawmen" arguments here.  

2.  For clarification, when I say, "Capitalism," I mean specifically, "the economic incarnation of evil."  

3.  Ok, seriously, now.  (Apologizes.)  As a layperson, I am concerned with how an ideology which favors private enterprise over collective responsibility and public welfare (which is what I do mean when I use the term "Capitalism") effects our lives (humanity, all of it) negatively or positively, and for me this is a matter of ethics.  

There is a smidgen of strawman argument in the sentence "The mechanisms involved in Capitalism - competition, free-markets, etc - are good tools for finding solutions to certain classes of production and distribution under the economic constraints that are in place but the solutions they will provide are determined by the constraints under which they find themselves."  Firstly, one could just as easy say "The mechanisms involved in torture - fear, psychological manipulation, etc - are good tools for finding solutions to certain classes of perceived social threats under the legal constraints that are in place but the solutions they will provide are determined by the constraints under which they find themselves."  What's that?  Torture doesn't have a good track record of getting reliable results?  It places people in situations in which they are stripped of their dignity?  It may lead to death?  Maybe that's just because governments aren't using it responsibly or regulating it enough.  Ok, that's a strawman too.  But analogy is the only way I can make the point.  Do I need to elaborate?  

My problems with this line of reasoning:

•  The assumption that this system is a just toolbox and without any inherent ideological nature or (perhaps more importantly) function.  That the problems and solutions are practical, not moral in nature.  Purely about supply and demand.
  
•  The assumption that the faults of this system are not implicit or unavoidable, but are results of how this ideology is implemented or regulated by governments.  Unless by "constraints under which they find themselves" you mean inherent constraints and not imposed constraints.  That's vague.  
  
•  The assumption that we agree on what constitutes a certain problem, solution or constraint.  That we have the same goals and motives.  
  
•  The assumption that even if we agree on what constitutes a certain problem, solution or constraint, that there is not a more preferable set of tools to accomplish the same desired outcome.
  
•  The assumption that how any of these tools work in theory resemble in any way how they actually work in reality.
  
•  The assumption that it is solely governments and not individuals who are responsible "to set the constraints under which the tools of Capitalism work and to deal with the problems which aren't amenable to solution with those tools - not to mention ameliorating the undesirable consequences of the tools themselves." I personally find the implication here counter-intuitive.  Capitalism (private enterprise over collective responsibility and public welfare) is fine so long as governments regulate it and clean up it's mess?  Here in America we call that ... Socialism!  It's "no true Scotsman" for capitalists!  lol.

FWIW, I pretty much agree with your last paragraph, and I suspect most people are truly in more agreement than they image, but get hung up on self-identification and the deeply connotative nature of ideological labels.    

So, really I'm not debating capitalism here, but just the way in which you presented your concern.  Which, ironically, I think repeats some of same mistakes that are getting under your skin.

I think I just gave myself a migraine, so I'll take this comment off the air.  Thanks. :)

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

Debt-based money, which includes any financial instrument with a return on investment, requires an economy to grow endlessly, and that is not possible.  

The result we are seeing all around us right now--an apparently happy period of material improvement turning to resource depletion and life-support destruction followed by material collapse.  

Capitalism, like a methedrine habit, is pretty much a dead end--going out on the high side.  

This is not exactly new news.  The Greek myth of Erischthon was warning us of this 27 centuries ago.  The pre-Greek civilization that gave us this myth burned out leaving almost no trace.  EVERYTHING was consumed in the catabolism of collapse.  

The most promising path to becoming sustainable is to start thinking the way sustainable people do.  

The Fates are kind.