There is something about this FRB debate that tempts almost everyone to imagine that it is just something to “think about for a while” and the announce one’s position. I really don’t understand why. It gets incredibly tiring to hear the trite terms in which this serious issue is discussed, debated, etc., even given that there is a MASSIVE and SERIOUS literature on the subject in print. Why do scholars bother writing things when people are happy to just generate an opinion based on nothing other than intutition? I don’t know.
What I would suggest is that if one really wants to have an opinion on this subject that one should read at least three serious article on opposing points of view, and at least one book: in particular, the most extended work on the relationship between micro-economic banking practice and macroeconomic phenomena, namely Jesus Huerta de Sotos Money, Bank Credit, and Economy Cycles. You can buy or read it online for free.
In addition, there literature section of Mises.org has probably 150 articles that address this topic in particular.
Unlike De Soto these books (except for Hayek) accept fractional reserve banking as both beneficial and legitimate, as long as they are not monopolized.