If fractional reserve lending was outlawed and only full reserve lending was legal as a form of lending then that would reduce the prices of houses and rent relative to the average median income

@shortstories Not going to lie, I have no idea what than means for me.

The question doesn't make any sense anyways.

Fractional reserve is what allows lending from deposits in the first place. If banks had to keep 100% of the reserves, they basically couldn't lend.

@Humpleupagus @shortstories @Monsignor_DickFace
They'd have to have an extra pool of savings to lend from in addition to the money deposited by customers. Under such a system banks would charge customers a fee for storing their money, as opposed to giving them a dividend, since they wouldn't be able to profit off holding customer deposits.

@ArdainianRight @Humpleupagus @Monsignor_DickFace

"They'd have to have an extra pool of savings to lend from in addition to the money deposited by customers"

The customer would deposit money into two categories

1 Is money the depositor can access any time that can not be used for loans

2 Is money the bank is given permission to use for loans, but the bank depositor can not access for a certain tine frame. The bank depositor would earn a share of the profit the bank made off these loans.

@ArdainianRight @Humpleupagus @Monsignor_DickFace

For example a customer might have two accounts

1 A checking account that can be used any time

2 A savings account that can only be accessed during certain time frames

The bank can not lend the money in the customer checking account

The bank can lend money in the customer checking account to other customers and that customer earns a portion of the profit from these loans

They can only take money out of savings at designated times