It's not vintage. It's literally in the theaters right now in China, released this year.
And it didn't cost, like, $230 thousand. It cost only $230 to make, by two part timers (a mother and her adult son).
By all accounts it's a terrible movie but people like how bad it is.
My point is that the best in the world at those two sports compete in the top US professional leagues, and that anyone in the world is welcome to participate if they have the skill level. Nothing you've said addresses my point, and you're arguing against something I've never said or implied.
To your point, though, both baseball and basketball are quite popular in the countries of origin of these international players. Baseball is huge in Japan, Korea, and much of Latin America. Basketball is huge in much of Europe, and the Euro League is competitive, as are the national leagues in Spain, Italy, and France. But the young stars from those leagues (and Turkey, Australia, and China) have been drafted into the NBA after having already proven themselves in professional competitive play. So not only are you arguing against something I never said, you just showed up, uninvited, to be wrong about it.
Most other leagues don't call their own championships/titles the "world" anything. American Major League Baseball explicitly calls its finals the World Series. The American NBA calls its winners the World Champions.
For those two sports and leagues, it's a pretty solid argument that those are the best players and coaches in the world at those sports, where the American leagues attract the absolute best talent.
It's harder to make that argument for soccer leagues around the world, though.
A substantial number of baseball's all-stars, in Major League Baseball, are not from the US. It's a popular enough sport elsewhere, but the best players tend to want to come to the US to play. About 25% of the players are foreign.
Same with basketball, which hasn't had an American MVP in 8 years. About 30% of the players are foreign.
So the question becomes, does the money get created when it is put in a deposit account balance, or when it gets spent outside the bank for the first time?
The textbook answer is that the money is created as soon as the deposit balance is created, not when the account holder spends it down enough to where the bank needs to borrow to maintain liquidity. It's how the Fed counts M1, for example.
The bank's need to actually run a viable business, and central bank regulations, prevents it from going nuts with this, but that's beside the point of what I'm saying: a bank doesn't need the central bank's permission or approval to create money by extending loans. In the aggregate, central bank policy affects the way all the different banks do this, but the end result is that the banks can create a shitload more money than there are reserves (and the reserves don't need to be physical currency, either, since they can just be balances in accounts with other financial institutions).
I can withdraw all I own and turn it into gold or pebbles if I like
You don't turn it into anything. You spend it to buy something else. You can spend it without withdrawing any kind of physical representation of the currency, too, with just plain old electronic payment systems.
The borrower provides an asset (collateral) and the bank provides an asset (savings from third parties).
Plenty of loans are made unsecured, where the borrower doesn't pledge the asset. The act of money creation through lending is the same regardless of whether it's secured or unsecured loans. And even secured loans don't change the underlying ownership and control of the collateral, unless a foreclosure happens.
That's not how central banks work. You still need collateral, which you can't pledge multiple times.
Yes, but the collateral can be the loans that they've extended, which, again, were created by creating a loan balance and a deposit balance. So they can extend a loan for $100, let the borrower spend $100, and then borrow against the original borrower's loan balance.
No, it can't be done infinitely, but I never claimed that it could be. I'm just saying that the process itself is entirely ephemeral, through written or electronic records alone.
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.
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.
Not exactly. The central banks acting as a lender of last resort encourage the commercial banks to create money in this way, but be assured that the actual creation occurs whether the bank needs to borrow money or not. The definition of money supply looks to the balances in checking accounts, and creating and disbursing a loan increases the balance in a checking account (while simultaneously increasing the negative balance in a loan account, but loan balances don't shrink the money supply), and as that money is spent it increases balances in someone else's checking account.
It's how all of it works. Money is just balances on double-entry bookkeeping, and the paper currency essentially is a piece of paper that the bearer of that paper is good for moving the balances in that ledger system.
And almost all of those ledgers are now digital.
We don't have a fixed money supply in the modern system when banks can issue debt. Not even close. I suggest you read the Bank Of England's paper called "Money Making in the Modern Economy" which I mentioned.
Yes, I'm quite familiar with that paper.
I'm not arguing that we have a fixed money supply. I was saying that if we were on a gold standard, in an alternative universe hypothetical, where the money supply was close to fixed, we would probably see worse price volatility.
Why does the armless man have a huge dick?