[opportune]

The thing that private banks are supposed to do is compete on accurately assessing and pricing risk (for lending). The better they do at this, the lower the rates they can offer on loans - more demand for loans - and higher returns they can offer to depositors - more supply for lending - with higher profits for themselves. They compete on this spread in a market.

I do not think the government would be good at doing this at all. Assessing risk is very hard, and the competition is necessary for it to benefit consumers. Politicians could pass extremely harmful or stupid policies for populist purposes.

That said, because banks have an oligopoly on “give me a place to digitally hold money” and in practice more money than they could ever really productively lend (why do you think interest rates have been trending down so low historically?), they’re not doing a great job at either side.

That’s why I think the government should implement only narrow banking where they don’t lend, just manage the table of accounts and amounts, and let banks compete against that for deposits. You would still move money to a bank for yield, provided it’s good enough, and banks would still be able to lend and stimulate the economy. Yes they’d have less capital and be able to lend less, which may require structurally higher rates (which may actually be a good thing in the long run- a lot of lending and low rates are just going towards bidding up fixed assets like land or leveraged stocks, and not actual economic activity) but that would balance out with higher yields on deposits.