The Art Of Poison-Pilling Music Files

Fractional Reserve Banking is over in the USA.

 

The Elimination of Fractional Reserve RequirementsOn March 15, 2020, the Federal Reserve announced that it was reducing reserve requirement ratios to zero percent for all depository institutions, effective March 26, 2020. This decision was made in response to the economic disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Here’s the context and impact, based on available information:

• What Was the Fractional Reserve Requirement? Historically, fractional reserve banking required banks to hold a percentage of their deposits (e.g., 3% or 10%, depending on the bank’s size) as reserves, either as cash in vaults or as deposits with the Federal Reserve. This was meant to ensure liquidity for withdrawals and stabilize the banking system, reducing the risk of bank runs (like those seen in the Great Depression or depicted in It’s a Wonderful Life). The reserve ratio was a key tool for the Fed to control the money supply, as it limited how much banks could lend out, influencing economic activity via the money multiplier effect.
  
  
  
• The Change in 2020: The Fed’s decision to set reserve requirements to zero effectively eliminated the mandate for banks to hold any reserves against deposits. This was part of a broader shift to an “ample reserves regime,” where the Fed incentivizes banks to hold reserves voluntarily by paying interest on reserve balances (IORB) rather than enforcing a minimum ratio. The goal was to free up liquidity, allowing banks to lend more to individuals and businesses during the pandemic-induced economic crisis.
  
  
  
• Why It Happened: The move was a response to the economic shutdown caused by COVID-19, aiming to stimulate lending and support economic recovery. The Fed had already shifted to an ample reserves framework in 2019, where banks held excess reserves beyond requirements due to post-2008 policies (e.g., quantitative easing). Setting the reserve ratio to zero aligned with this framework, as the Fed now relies on tools like IORB and open market operations to manage monetary policy rather than reserve requirements.
  
  
• Impact on Banking: With no reserve requirement, banks can theoretically lend out 100% of their deposits, increasing the potential for credit creation. This amplifies the money multiplier effect, as banks are no longer constrained by a fixed reserve ratio. However, banks still face capital adequacy ratios (e.g., Basel III requirements) and liquidity requirements to ensure stability, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) protects deposits up to $250,000 to mitigate bank run risks.
  
  
  
• Current Status: As of my latest information (up to July 21, 2025), the Fed has no plans to reinstate reserve requirements, though it retains the authority to adjust them if economic conditions warrant. The focus has shifted to managing interest rates and liquidity through IORB and other tools.
  
  

Critical Perspective and ControversyThe elimination of reserve requirements has sparked debate, reflected in both web sources and X posts, which ties into your interest in systemic “fractures” and emergent phenomena:

• Proponents’ View: The Fed and some economists argue that zero reserve requirements boost economic growth by freeing up capital for lending, especially during crises. The ample reserves regime, combined with interest on reserves, ensures banks maintain sufficient liquidity without rigid mandates. This aligns with your idea of systems adapting to new contexts, like water’s surface tension behaving differently in zero gravity.
  
  
• Critics’ Concerns: Some, including Austrian School economists like Ludwig von Mises (cited in X posts), view fractional reserve banking—and now “no-reserve” banking—as a source of financial instability. They argue it enables excessive credit creation, fueling boom-bust cycles and increasing the risk of bank runs if depositors lose confidence. X posts, like those from
  @MLiamMcCollum
  and
  @orion_kos
  , call this shift “fictional reserve banking,” suggesting it prioritizes bank profits over stability. Critics like Caitlin Long advocate for 100% reserve banking to eliminate these risks, echoing your interest in systems that break under certain conditions (e.g., bank runs as a “fracture”).
  
  
• Public Sentiment: X posts highlight public confusion and distrust, with users like
  @hrtlndbitcoin
  noting the shift to “optional reserve banking” and
  @rajatsonifnance
  warning that banks can “do whatever they want” with deposits. This reflects a broader concern about transparency and systemic fragility, akin to the “cracks” in understanding you’ve described in our discussions about free will and emergent systems.