Normally if I have contract with somebody of borrowing money, and I don't pay, the other side lost money. Because it was my responsibility who I do business wit

Normally if I have contract with somebody of borrowing money, and I don't pay, the other side lost money. Because it was my responsibility who I do business with. So we both get to play until we reach zero. That's fair game. Now we're saying, actually, banks effectively don't impose counterparty risk on their clients. So the government is actually who's taking the counterparty risk. If that's the government and not the customers, why did they get that privilege? Why is the government only there when the risk is fulfilled? Limited liability is fine. It's not fine when who's really liable is the government, while the original deal was between the bank and its customer. Student loans are also not fine either, since you don't get to set them to zero. Revoke Banks privilege of handling money. Let them play the game like the rest. Even the government itself needs to raise money using Treasury bonds. I want a fair game. This game is rigged. One player has the privilege of effectively using the government as an insurer for it's counterparty risk. It has repeatedly blown and abused that privilege. Revoke it. Let me hold my account at the Fed if I have positive balance, just like the rest of the banks. Call it CDBC or whatever. Let me get the Fed interest rates just like banks do. The banks are free to do business as they have always done, to loan money. They are free to deal with the trench of people who need loans. Not with my money. My money is only there because they forced me to. That's not a fair system. I don't approve their usage of it for their margins but I literally don't have a choice. Which is why they also get to give me zero interest rates while the Fed gives them much higher rates.