Why can't we just have one bank owned by the government?

As Mr. Montez points out, one state already does. It's a tremendous success, and the state had far fewer of the problems with bank failures that private banks did. State run banks, or very tight control by the state, typically have a far better record than laissez faire as practiced in the US. Just compare US banks to Canadian. read more

But in banking, just like healthcare and defense, gov't owned or heavily regulated tends have a far better record than capitalist. There are proposals right now to make the Postal Service solvent by letting it do local community style banking. read more

Britain was one of the last countries to lose its state bank in 1997. Largely because of the success of the German Independent Central bank. Plus we had had electoral mini booms for the past 50 years. It could easily take over the bank, but I don't think many people would view it as a good idea. read more

In 1959, the government passed the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, enabling the State Bank of India to take over eight former state-associated banks as its subsidiaries. On 13 September 2008, the State Bank of Saurashtra, one of its associate banks, merged with the State Bank of India. SBI has acquired local banks in rescues. read more