one of the things that irks me about (consumer) banks is that they've somehow convinced consumers that they should pay for banking services, instead of the rece

one of the things that irks me about (consumer) banks is that they've somehow convinced consumers that they should pay for banking services, instead of the receiving returns for loaning the banks money (which is what a checking or savings account is). some of this is due to a lack of financial literacy on the part of consumers (financiers know that loans should come with an interest rate, not a charge for the privilege of loaning the money in the first place, but consumers on the whole apparently don't). but there is also a regulatory mechanism exploited by consumer banks: FDIC insurance. without insurance, people are understandably reluctant to loan money to banks since they don't know if they'll get the money back. so the government (again, understandably) steps in and guarantees with tax dollars that you'll get that money back, even if the bankers are crooks. but of course, that means the government must try to tease out the crooks with a stringent set of tests and regulations around who they'll insure. and just like that, you have an anti-competitive choke point where incumbent banks use the regulations to guard against future competitors by keeping the regulatory barrier high. (this is just another example of the financialization via insurance that you elucidate) also, use cash. it's transaction-cost free, anonymous and universally accepted.