a little simplistic, in my opinion. But her description of the dark side of finance is forensically detailed. She knows where all the bodies are buried.) Of course, this problem is made much worse by the moral hazard which arises when governments implicitly or explicitly underwrite the risk-taking of the banks. But even without tacit government backstopping, the fact that bank investors are "on the hook" has not, and will not, "result in efficient, responsible behaviour." Next, you write: And since we don't depend on them anymore to keep our money safe, we no longer need to regulate them. Which will hugely reduce the potential for rent-seeking. I'm sorry to say this is somewhat naive. We do not just rely on banks to keep our money safe. We rely on them as intermediaries in the credit market, which is crucial for the functioning of the real economy. The crash of 2008 was an excellent illustration. The problem was not that depositor's money was at risk ---it was protected by depositor insurance. The problem, rather, was that banks had built up an astronomically large and precarious house of cards of leverage piled on top of leverage piled on top of leverage, so that even a minor hiccup in the price of the underlying assets was sufficient to trigger a cascade of margin calls causing the entire system to implode. The result was that the worldwide credit market nearly ground to a halt, which would have had terrible repercussions in the real