this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2026
1340 points (99.0% liked)

memes

22450 readers
3377 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Yes, the limit to commercial bank lending is creditworthiness and default risk (because the bank is left holding the bag when a borrower doesn't repay), and the cost of maintaining liquidity (the bank can borrow against the loans it owns, but it may cost a higher interest rate than they'd earn on the cash they've lent out). This paper lays it out pretty clearly, and is basically the near unanimous view among macroeconomists.

Or, in some regulatory environments, banks are required to maintain a minimum fractional reserve, which limits the total amount of loans it can lend out with its underlying assets.

But the money is created when the loans are created, and destroyed when the loans are repaid. The other stuff behind the scenes to give the system stability is important, but doesn't actually create or destroy money.

[–] Tommelot@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Exactly. The bank can borrow, for which they need collateral, which sufficiently proves that what you're saying is wrong.

They have to manage their balance sheet actively, and your original statement was in the lines of 'it's all made up and they have infinite equity supply'.

[–] exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Read my original comment again. I explicitly talk about banks borrowing to maintain liquidity. It's an important limit on their ability to create money, and nobody said anything about infinite money supply.

But it doesn't change the fact that the act of money creation is caused by a bank creating a loan, and the money comes into being without a single physical act of manufacturing: it happens on a computer, and before computers it happened on paper.

So without claiming that money was unlimited, I did point out that money itself is overwhelningly digital in the modern age. And the limits don't come from any physical constraints.

[–] Jtotheb@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Fitting username. Explaining this to people irl who respect and listen to me is hard; can’t imagine trying to inform someone online who’s simultaneously trying to win the conversation you’re having

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)