Anything that can't fail can print money

Frb is impossible if the people are enlightened

One of the interesting things about banking and fractional reserve banking is that people don't seem to mind if (guaranteed) banks print money. (We can deduce that they are unenlightened.) If the government prints money by means of Quantitative Easing or something similar there is a frenzy of outrage in the media but if the 'banks' print a similar amount or much more there is silence. The media allow printing of money if it is perpetrated by the banks. Only the (non-bank) government is prevented from doing so by the media. The media are correct to object to inflation but they do not realise that deposit insurance merges the banks and the government. The failure of the media to object to frb indicates they don't know how the system works. Since the media are so easily tricked we could suggest that the practice is a fraud perpetrated by the government... people think the banks are private which enables the state to print money. Frb is possible only because the people think the banks are private.

It's bad for the currency if banks are protected

Deposit insurance is not without negative consequences. Deposit insurance means that banks are immune from bankruptcy. This means that whatever a bank does it cannot ever go out of business even if it makes bad loans with customer deposits. The consequence of this is that the currency becomes inflated with unfunded (but government-protected) bank liabilities. The negative consequence of deposit insurance is (the possibility of) inflation. If there is no deposit insurance banks would have no ability to cause inflation. Banks without deposit insurance cannot cause inflation... they can only do so if they are in the public sector.

By definition banks are part of the government

The definition of a bank is a government agency which has the ability to (cause inflation and) increase the money supply. If the government decides to abandon deposit insurance (and thereby abandon banks) then the definition will change... but until that point banks are (by definition) part of the government. Banks are by definition inflationary... or at least they have the ability to cause inflation even if they do not always choose to do so.

Definition of a safe currency

A safe currency is a currency which is not a deposit-insurance currency. It is the opposite of a deposit-insurance currency.

Definition of a deposit-insurance currency

A deposit-insurance currency is any currency for which there are banks taking deposits in that currency which are able to increase the money supply. It is possible for a bank to increase the money supply if it can make loans with customer deposits and has deposit insurance. If a bank taking deposits in a particular currency is able to increase the money supply (of that currency) then that currency is said to be a deposit-insurance currency.

A currency for which this is not true is a safe currency.

Inflation is caused by fractional reserve banking

Fractional reserve banking is bad only if inflation is bad... which it isn't. The worst thing about frb is the inflation it causes which is not a problem. Inflation is not a problem so frb is not a problem.

Deposit insurance is a subsidy for debt

Deposit insurance makes taxpayers liable for (bad) bank loans. If the bank doesn't make any loans and operates as a full-reserve bank then clearly deposit insurance has no function since all the deposits are fully backed. If the bank does make loans and they are returned to the bank prior to withdrawals then again deposit insurance has no role. It is only when the bank makes loans and these are not returned in time for all withdrawals that there is a problem and the deposit insurance comes into effect. It is when the bank makes bad loans that deposit insurance matters. Deposit insurance is to protect bank customers form the lending decisions of the bank. It is a subsidy for bank loans.

Deposit insurance is completely unnecessary

An institution which can print money is not a bank but there are institutions on the high street with banking licences which give the appearance of banks... which people assume are banks partly because they perform the role of custodian. Banks must also not increase the money supply. Being able to pretend to be a bank is of great advantage to these institutions because it makes people less suspicious. If they are not banks and can make loans in spite of having deposit insurance then they are causing inflation. If to cause inflation and not be the government is criminal then for these institutions not to be banks (or the government) is criminal. It is only because they are part of the state that it is allowed. Private institutions can't print money but what most people regard as banks are not private institutions which means that they are printing money without people knowing about it. People assume banks are private but they have deposit insurance.

The economy is not wealth and so GDP fails

GDP measures the size of the economy but it does not measure wealth... to measure wealth we must include everyone but the economy only includes the wealthy (those who are involved in the economy). It is perfectly possible for a large segment of society (the poor) to be excluded from measures of GDP because they do not make significant transactions. GDP measures transactions which will exclude the poor. To measure wealth we must include everyone which GDP fails to do and so GDP fails as a genuine measure of wealth... although it does measure (the size of) the economy perfectly adequately. The economy alone is not wealth and so GDP fails as a measure of wealth.

Fractional reserve banking is always a conspiracy

Fractional reserve banking is always a conspiracy because it always involves deposit insurance. There can be no fractional reserve banking without deposit insurance because banks would fail... there would be a bank run. The only thing that makes fractional reserve banking possible is deposit insurance which means that it is always a conspiracy.

It is a conspiracy for banks to cause inflation

It is not a conspiracy for a private bank to make loans with customer deposits... a conspiracy can only be something associated with the government. Banks with deposit insurance are part of the government so we can say that fractional reserve banking (frb) is not a conspiracy unless the bank has deposit insurance... in which case frb becomes a conspiracy. So to reiterate fractional reserve banking is not a conspiracy unless the banks have deposit insurance... which most (all?) of them do. Deposit insurance makes fractional reserve banking a conspiracy. It is a conspiracy that banks (are able to) cause inflation... which is not possible without deposit insurance and the ability of banks to engage in fractional reserve banking. If it is not illegal for banks with deposit insurance to do fractional reserve banking then the practice of frb is then a conspiracy.

We are not banks so deposit insurance is wrong

There is a difference between people and banks so it makes no sense for there to be deposit insurance. If a bank fails that is not worse than people failing so the state has no obligation to protect the banks. Since the state has no obligation to protect the banks it should not protect the banks and deposit insurance is wrong and immoral.

Fractional reserve banking is not banking

Fractional reserve banking is not banking in the true sense of the word. If the bank fails to retain the belongings in the bank then it has failed to provide the service of banking. Banks do not make loans with customer assets... unless the customer understands that this may happen and is willing to forego use of the money for the period. If the bank makes loans with deposits which are available on demand this is not banking. It is not banking if the bank causes inflation. The only true form of banking is full reserve banking. Fractional reserve banking is either theft or fraud.

Debt is not good for a healthy economy

The notion of debt is false. We owe people nothing even if they have been kind to us in the past. To be kind in the expectation of receiving something in return is not a kindness. If to lend is not charity then (to be valid) it must be something which is best for everyone. If something is not good for a society or group then it is not good and is invalid. Debt is invalid because it does not serve the interests of the group. It is not good for someone in difficulties (only poor people get into debt) to have their problems further compounded by liabilities falling due in the future. Debts should be forgiven and should not be recognised in the first place. Debt is a bad thing for a society.