> I think you mean borrow. Loan would be the opposite. Thanks, fixed. > You're arguing that loans are useful. Nobody is arguing the opposite. Like everything

> I think you mean borrow. Loan would be the opposite. Thanks, fixed. > You're arguing that loans are useful. Nobody is arguing the opposite. Like everything else, making it harder to make loans will decrease the amount of loans. It's not exactly a sliding scale converting between "the amount of reserves necessary" vs "the amount of loans available", but that's the basic model. So arguing that we should go from a certain amount of fractional reserves, to effectively 100% reserves, will have the side effect of cutting down the amount of loans by a lot. So the discussion needs to be "how much risk are we willing to tolerate, for X amount of loans". However, I see most people in this thread (including your parent comment) who are saying something like "loans are bad". I'm trying to make the case that, quite the opposite, loans are inherently a good thing, it's the risk that's bad, but you can't cut down one without impacting the other, so you have to consider the tradeoff. Maybe I misread your comment btw, but you're talking about digging holes in the ground and filling them up being a bad thing - I agree! But I just don't think that's what most loans are doing, certainly not the 90% of them that we would be killing! (I'm totally guessing on the number, but I think it's >50%?)