Banking System

I did not want to start rebuttals too early, though it seems you desired to anyway.All you really did with your recent input, was morph my argument into something irrelevant and have yet to refute my points with substantial evidence.1. "This is not true, banks commonly only have a maximum of 1% interest, which is not even enough to account for the Federal Reserves 2% interest policy." I will consider that as irrelevant information until sources are provided to prove the validity of those values.2. "but it does not allow for quick return for depositors, in fact it has no other affect to the depositor but that the bank has spent 97% of his money." You are simply WRONG on this. If that was even likely to be a true statement, which I doubt it is, then that would mean my parents, my friends, and myself cannot immediately draw out a certain amount of money from our deposits. The economy would not even likely be functioning as it is right now. The fact is, is that "immediate liquidity" is currently being granted to depositers, so you have yet to refute this point.3. "uncle Sam and the taxpayers will cover it." Again, you are just morphing my argument and pointing fingers. Your argument is similar to the ones of those critics with arguably subjective viewpoints that I mentioned. What your are trying to refer to in this phrase, is merely a"preventative measure" for people to get there money back in the event of a bank's "inability" to provide for depositors. When deposit insurance is issued to depositors, that virtually means a bank has already gone bankrupt and not any time before that. My main argument is that fractional-reserve banking is an effective method for our current banking system, and that argument remains with my points given earlier. Banks will seek not to default on their obligations, otherwise they would have to go bankrupt. They will do so by means of usually taking from their central bank. As I said, central banks in many countries maintain a policy of having a "limit" for the amount of money created in the commercial banking system, and so this helps to ensure that banks are able to pay off depositors when they want to withdrawal money."...each (bank) will be inclined to routinely return claims, such as checks or banknotes, received from rival banks. The uncertain flow of such interbank “clearings” generates a demand for reserves for settlement, which...will vary with the volume of outstanding bank liabilities, even if bank customers never bother to withdraw gold. Although optimal reserve ratios are unlikely to remain perfectly constant over time, and may decline gradually as more efficient settlement procedures are discovered, for the most part the rate of inflation under an established and mature fractional reserve arrangement is unlikely to differ substantially from the rate that would prevail under 100-percent reserves (Selgin)".-This is a quote from an article written by a Phd. economics professor, and so is a very credible statement against 100-percent reserves as an alternative as well as disscusing the "limit" banks have to adhere to or also known as, prioritized reserve ratios.You say our banking system needs reform, but what are the alternatives that actually work better than fractional-reserve banking? What are these OTHER reforms that are just as (or more, but unlikely) capable as the policies today, that you speak of? You have yet to provide a decent argument in the context of what you had said to be your main discussion, that our banks need "serious reform" whereas I have found plenty that discusses just how effective our banking system currently is.Sources: -http://capitalismmagazine.com...- https://en.wikipedia.org...;