Hoarding and lending is "the same" in this case. Someone else spends your money but he has to pay it back. He can only do that if whatever he "produces" makes a

Hoarding and lending is "the same" in this case. Someone else spends your money but he has to pay it back. He can only do that if whatever he "produces" makes a profit which means someone else must buy something aka spend money. Why would someone spend money if hoarding/lending makes him buy more later? Also if lending becomes more profitable than hoarding everyone offers to lend which obviously pushes lending returns down. So in the end there will be a balance between lending and hoarding but both will return profit so there is no reason to buy something today if you could buy it cheaper tomorrow. The effect for this is exactly the same with or without lending. It wrecks the supply chains because it becomes financially acceptable to run out of stuff rather than buy reserves and any long term investment becomes high risk. Maintenance becomes irresponsible waste of money you'd rather wait until something breaks than pay upfront to keep it running. Essentially it slowly slows down and destroys the economy as we know it. All while people get "rich" and think it doesn't affect them because "money can buy you anything" until something essential can no longer be bought no matter how much money you have then the whole thing collapses because the money turn worthless if the real buying power turns out to be zero.