Thanks from me too, very interesting. I'm also no professional expert, but it looks to me like this can be non-intuitive because borrowing "creates money" only

Thanks from me too, very interesting. I'm also no professional expert, but it looks to me like this can be non-intuitive because borrowing "creates money" only when said borrowing is linked to an asset bubble. Case in point: if my house appreciates on the market by $100K, I am $100K "richer"; this by itself doesn't increase the circulating money. But if I'm able to borrow $100K by mortgaging the increased value of my house, now I have $100K more to spend. The lender has $100K less in their bank account, but they now have a mortgage-backed security which is worth $100K and that, if there is a liquid market for such securities, can be almost as good as actual dollars for trading. The circulating money has increased. It gets even worse. If the lender and/or the borrower use even just a part of those $100K to speculate in the housing market, the bubble will accelerate... until, at some point, enough people actually want to use their new riches to buy products that aren't part of the asset bubble, and producers of those products don't accept those inflated securities as payment. Then, the bubble bursts. And, by the way, this whole mechanism has nothing to do with bad central banks or fiat money. It's perfectly consistent with a perfect free market AFAIK, and the only (not easy at all) way to prevent it is regulation.