That's fine that there are economists that disagree the repeal of glass steagall helped cause it or didn't help cause it. I personally wouldn't call either side a fact. Some economists feel it did contribute, others don't. Of course the Libertarian economists of your article don't like regulations, I wouldn't say it's meatier unless you lean more towards being a Libertarian.

That still doesn't dispute the claim that credit default swaps were the primarily cause for the financial collapse of 2008, as the second link points out which you didn't comment about at all.

The head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission asked for more oversight. Alan Greenspan as the head of the federal reserve, the banks, and their lobbyists asked the Senate to get rid of all oversight and let the market handle itself. Alan Greenspan had a very Libertarian mindset as head of the Federal Reserve. Hands off, let the market work itself out. Look how well that ended up in the USA.

Thankfully to the banking regulations by our Liberal Finance Minister, Paul Martin, we were in a much better position than the USA. I disagree with your assertion that it's a fact that not all oversight is relevant. Oversight is relevant in all industries, in all manners of government. Oversight is what keeps governments accountable. Oversight is what keeps banks from getting us into a financial crisis.

I would rather have overlapping oversight, unnecessary oversight, oversight that may not yield anything for a few years, because we can all see quite clearly what no oversight can do and how it enables corporations or governments to do what they want with no responsibility for their actions.