The Mises crowd is stuck on this fractional banking issue

The tangle up two issues, 100% backed deposit to loans and the inefficiency iof central banking.

Let me start with the first.

What is 100% reserve banking?

It is not banking, it is a serial auction where depositors stand in the crowd and borrowers sell units of debt, one at a time.  It fails for the same reason Walmart does not hold auctions, people do no sit around for long periods waiting for the particular good they want.   The same issue holds with 100% fractional banking.

The second issue is the complexity of central banking in the USA.  Reserves are spilled all over the place within a compartment of governments and regulated accounts in a mish mash of a nightmare. That is mostly not fractional reserve banking. The reserves are there, mostly, the mostly comes from the government subsidies and a long lag on that.  We relay on investments banks in the primary dealer system to compute the reserve ratio, over all, including all government implied and explicit reserves set aside. It is an incredibly stupid system, but it is way stupid long before we hit the problem of fractional reserves.

Real banking works different.

People leave deposits in advance, ad hoc; and take out loans in advance, ad hoc. The banker sets the risk. About 5/6 of the risk is borne by lenders and depositors by the interest swap needed to keep the banker's 1/6 of the risk within bounds. At equilibrium, for the USA, the total risk is about 3-4%.

This is not complicated stuff, the complications all come from politicians trying to cheat within the central bank systems. The other complication is trying to make all agents risk equalized.  Mainly agents who tend to keep similar loan/deposit ratios. Hard, but much easier with new technology.