Given that banks are already entitled to receive support from the federal government in the event they become insolvent, is there any reason to keep the banks private? In other words, why shouldn't the government directly oversee basic banking activity? If traditional banking activity were separated from riskier banking activity, then there would be less concern that a crisis in financial markets could lead to a distribution of federal funds (tax revenues) to protect businesses that are owned by shareholders or to cover losses related to excessively risky banking activity. Consider that, in France, the post office offers deposit and savings account services similar to those offered in the United States, but they do not use the deposit funds to invest in any risky activities. Therefore, unlike in the U.S. banking culture, there are no fears that the government will have to use tax revenues to guarantee the deposits. These post office accounts exist alongside traditional privatelyowned banks. What are the strengths and weaknesses of this approach? Do you think we should adopt a similar system in the US? Why or why not?