> Can you name any nation which regular bank failures which isn't a hellhole?
That's a bit unfair, because there is no country (yet) where there is a system similar to what I proposed. If there were, then maybe it would be pretty normal and putting money on the bank that yields interest will just be seen and regulated as investing into stocks nowadays.
> It's also not what I want people to learn. Systems like this ought to work well enough in a well-governed country that ordinary individuals don't need to think about it.
To me it feels like you are trying to push away a responsibility that is impossible to push away. (sorry for me bad English)
What I mean is, once someone gives money to the bank and the bank _uses_ it instead of storing it (e.g. for a loan/credit) then there _is_ a risk that the money will be lost.
So if you want banks to be failsafe in the sense that it is legally guaranteed that you can never lose your money (currently that's not the case right) then banks should be fully government controlled or at least so tightly regulated that they are very very different from a regular business. I mean, banks are already highly regulated, but not nearly enough in my opinion. If the bank can't lose/go bankcrup, then it also shouldn't win, so no profit or highly regulated profit.
EDIT: I forgot to say that if the state is essentially insurance for the bank, it should charge for that service just like a normal insurance company would.
> Why? All evidence suggests the contrary: (...)
None of the points contradicts what I said.
But look: even in a communal society YOU pick your friends, no one else. And if there are two kinds of foods, one tasty, cheap and unhealthy und one so-so, kinda expensive but healthy, would YOU trust the advertisements which one to pick?
Even with a doctor: sure, it's great to have competent doctors. But it's a fact that there are better and worse doctors. So if health is important to you, YOU have to pick the right doctor. If you rely on someone else to do so, you are essentially putting your life in their hands. While anyone can decide to do that, I just don't think that it's a good idea.
The problem with your nice example life is that once things go southwards (and eventually they always do) then you can't deal with it. I prefer a slightly less optimal system that has less potential to go really bad, even if average quality of life is a bit lower.