“on demand, pending supply” = “pending supply”
A= “on demand”
B= “pending supply”
According to you:
AB=B
This means that A=B.
“on demand” = “pending supply”
(it matters not for this example if AB is A AND B, or A OR B)
Do you understand why?
Now, what must 'not on demand’ equal to according to you?
if A=B then
not A= not B
“not on demand”=“not pending supply”
So a bank claim redeemable “not pending supply”, which is what 100% reserve is, would now be a claim redeemable “not on demand”. While it is FRB that is now offering redemption “on demand”. Interesting conclusion.
Are you satisfied with this rather absurd result? Do you see now that “on demand, pending supply” is a logical self-contradictory statement, and therefore, impossible to carry out?