Gary Gorton on the shadow banking system

Tyler Cowen and Arnold Kling comment on Gary Gorton's new paper.  Here's the main idea:

Periodic banking panics have been the norm in U.S. history. But the panics appeared to end in the U.S. when deposit insurance was legislated in 1934. Combined with valuable bank charters and oversight by bank examiners, the Quiet Period was created. What changed? Bank charter values eroded under competition. Securitization is a more efficient way to finance loans. The growth of derivative securities caused an enormous demand for collateral. Over twenty-five years the shadow banking system evolved to meet the needs of this modern economy. Unfortunately, the vulnerability to panic was also produced.

Gary has an incredible knack for details and more than anyone else I've read he seems to be abreast of how the modern banking system is evolving.  But I don't get why he doesn't apply the same rigour to understanding the pre-Fed era.  Here's my comment on Tyler's post:

I don't understand how Gorton can honestly review the history of pre-Fed banking in the US and conclude that the frequent panics were all market failures and that federal deposit insurance finally saved the day in 1934. Does he know anything about the experience of free banking in Scotland or Canada or Australia? Panics occurred in the pre-Fed US precisely because of severe regulatory restrictions on branch and interstate banking and the bond-deposit requirement for bank note issuance. These regs didn't exist in Scotland, Canada, or Australia in the 19th century and things worked out great. Gorton's whole analysis stems from this assumption, so naturally he thinks federal deposit insurance should be extended to the shadow banking system. Instead, I think it's more likely that the shadow banking system, as the name implies, has evolved to avoid the regulations and the regulators and will continue to do so with each new regulation.