The economics equivalent of the Bambino's called shot . . .
"Google uncloaks once-secret server"

Not the metaphor I'd use . . .

. . . but it's O.K.: "Capitalism Still Has Legs That Are Long and Sexy".

Let’s start with the claim that deregulation was to blame.

“It’s exactly the opposite,” said Sam Peltzman, professor emeritus at Chicago’s Booth School of Business, when I asked him what Friedman, his former professor and colleague, would have said. “Regulation was there to make the banking industry safe. It conduced to do just the opposite.”

Regulation Aversion

Financial institutions respond to regulation in ways that offset the original intent, according to Peltzman.

When regulators increased capital requirements, banks took greater risk with their capital, Peltzman said.

When the Basel Accord sought to align capital requirements with risk, “banks took risk off their balance sheet,” creating structured investment vehicles to house the wayward assets, he said. “That made it worse.”

Regulation didn’t prevent the savings and loan industry from getting into trouble in the 1980s, he said. Nor did it prevent large banks from lending to Asia a decade later. Latin America’s “less developed countries” of the 1970s and 1980s may have morphed into Asia’s “emerging markets” by the 1990s, but that did nothing to change the nature of risky loans.

Regulation is unlikely to prevent the next crisis either, Peltzman said.