>>1232304
Because banks generate money by issuing loans backed on the money they receive. Governments are limited in the amount of new money they can generate.

>>1232304

Really hope this is bait because you're basically a berniebro-tier kind of stupid. First, involve politics in banking and you doom countries. Second, even a PA kind of unified financial market would open the financial sector door to direct politicians' influence, hence doom anyway. Imagine a country mangling its own financial market in its entirety for political gains (short term). Oh yes, Venezuela and Zimbabwe are good examples. What we need is a private fin sector regulated and audited by separated institutions, themselves regulated by the PA. Third, investment banks basically are professionals who IPO companies. As always, involve the state in this kind of shit and you spread corruption like bread to pigeons. Fourth, a Bank-state could raise your mortgage rate and you can't do shit about it. Imagine that. Boy rethink your economics and grow up

>>1232304
Do other countries have a right to exist?
Are we ending all international commerce now? Do countries no longer sell bonds?

>inb4 the next election's version of Bernie #occufags actually protest to end banking

>>1232309
>Governments are limited in the amount of new money they can generate.
They borrow from private banks now no?

This is why in any city in the world, 4 out of the 5 tallest buildings are banker buildings. Maybe an insurance building in there. Banks bought governments a long time ago. The BIS in Basel Switzerland owning every central bank in the world, including the US Fed, is the largest by far.

>>1232304
Yes goyim, you would die with bankers

Banks provide services, namely facilitating large financial transactions for their customers and assessing the risk of loaning money to their clients for various terms at various rates.

A government COULD handle that, and in many countries the government does run a bank, but this wouldn't reduce the number of tall office buildings dedicated to running that bank (well, it might, but not for reasons of redundancy). The market does not support more banks than it can bear, otherwise there would be more banks.

So assuming the government runs a bank for general consumers one of the two following is true:
>Government bank is, by law, the only bank allowed to operate
This creates a disaster as governments are terrible at efficiently allocating resources and discovering proper price points. The government will under supply the market and overpay for what it supplies. Black market banking will become a necessity if you want to get anything done, leaving consumers at the mercy of the mob to do their banking.

>Government competes in the banking market with private banks
The system operates exactly as above except the black market banks operate store fronts and the people inside dress in suits. They are still run by the mob and exploit consumers because the government run banks drive out proper competition as they are immune to market forces or the need to make a profit. If the government bank is required to turn a profit you might escape some of this but then why is it a government bank... oh right because...

>No matter which of the above is true the government bank will lend money to political insiders and government projects and be a constant source of scandal and corruption
Most governments already have strict bidding procedures for distributing funds because of how easy and common it is for them to spend other people's (THE people's) money on themselves and their friends. Giving the government an institution whose only job is to lend money is asking for it.

>>1232304
Banks themselves are not the problem, it is our fiat money system, government subsidy of residential loans and bailouts that are unsustainable. Even with fractional reserve requirements, bad banks would fail and the marker would clear itself.