That of course relies on a rather narrow definition of criminality. Breaking the global economy for the personal benefit of a tiny group of people, could be considered, in most people's terms, a pretty bad thing to do....
Yet despite that, as Lansley concludes, his comparison with the Twenties eventually breaks down. The Depression led to a complete rethink about banking regulation and the reversal of the soaring income inequalities of the time. Yet now, "despite the scale of the meltdown and the massive rescue of the banking system the economic orthodoxy of the last 30 years remains largely intact... The British Treasury still recoils from policies that might 'distort the market'. There has been a good deal of hand-wringing about the role of the banks and of the regulators, but as yet, no substantive challenge to the dominant belief in the virtues of self-correcting markets, powerful finance and high levels of inequality."
Put The Cost of Inequlity together with Treasure Islands and Prosperity Without Growth, then you'll get a good way into understanding the very deep hole we are in, and start to get a glimpse of possible ways out.
and 
.
Article comments
1 - ScienceNotSuperstition
People don't choose to be rich or poor, as nobody has free will. People don't choose their genes or where they grow up. Both of those factors determine everything about the condition of a person's brain. Twin studies show that twins raised apart can have almost the exact same personalities, despite being raised by different families from birth. People aren't responsible for their actions, since people didn't choose their parents or the childhood environment that shaped their neuroanatomy. Whether someone becomes a criminal or a hero is determined by the condition of their brain's frontal lobe. Thousands of neuroimaging studies accessible through PubMed or Google Scholar demonstrate that personality is closely connected to neuroanatomical features of the brain. Sam Harris and David Eagleman are two neuroscientists who convincingly argue against the unscientific notion of free will.