> In the process they have inflicted enormous harm to our economy and lives, but they have not shared a proportionate share of the costs. The costs they impose hardly justify the veritable monopolies banks are afforded by the laws and regulations which are very effective at preventing competitors from entering the market.

I'll just guess you're American.

America's obsession with "free market" is why you have terrible banks, terrible health care, terrible conditions for low income workers.

Governments are intended to serve the whole of society. If you elect a government that decides society is best served by private enterprises which are solely interested in making a profit and aren't bound by laws saying they have to serve the entire community responsibly, what do you expect?

And here's a tip for you: "disrupting" banks isn't going to work out well either. If banks are taxi's, what will the bank equivalent of Uber look like?

A company that hires thieves to run it's operations, and every 100th customer has their funds stolen by a member of staff.

Banks don't need more competition to be better. They need to be legally required to operate in a way that is financially reliable, and held accountable when they don't.