Deregulation is not the problem. The financial industry is highly, highly regulated. The Federal Reserve, a corrupt union of government and big banks, controls the money supply, which is always used to bail out big banks. To suggest that "deregulation" is the problem is to ignore the corrupt regulations at the very heart of the financial system--and indeed the entire free market in the US, and even the world--in the form of Federal Reserve Notes.
It's true there's a great deal of corruption. But many kinds of activity that lead to the financial crisis were impossible under the Glass-Steagall Act. You might argue that corruption is the root cause, and lead to the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (key enablers that were deregulatory in nature). But it was still the rolling back of a successful regulatory system that paved the way.
BTW, It's interesting to look at the environment in which Glass-Steagall was enacted and compare it to our own times.
Let's not overgeneralize by lumping everyone into a single "financial industry" - really some sectors like banking are highly regulated while others (like hedge funds) much less so. Despite high bureaucracy, the financial industry as a whole isn't effectively regulated in terms of the types of financial instruments that are traded. Hence our problems with massive underwriting of mortgage-backed securities.
The financial industry has too much bureaucracy and paperwork - not enough sensible regulation and with that I'm 100% in agreement. Why not treat financial instruments like drugs are treated by the FDA? Each new financial instrument would need to be studied, approved, and it's distribution controlled for the public benefit. We could reduce reporting burdens for financial houses, but increase common sense controls on the types of securities that actually serve a public benefit. That would be my vote.
