Reading the source. It feels like it’s written for a specific audience, perhaps people who have taken a year of economics or more. So it’s difficult for an engi

Reading the source. It feels like it’s written for a specific audience, perhaps people who have taken a year of economics or more. So it’s difficult for an engineer to parse. One example is this paragraph: > when households choose to save more money in bank accounts, those deposits come simply at the expense of deposits that would have otherwise gone to companies in payment for goods and services. Saving does not by itself increase the deposits or ‘funds available’ for banks to lend. Indeed, viewing banks simply as intermediaries ignores the fact that, in reality in the modern economy, commercial banks are the creators of deposit money. That could be taken to mean that savings accounts have only a second order contribution on the amount of money banks loan out, it could also mean that savings accounts reduce the amount of money banks can loan out. I believe that passage is looking at banking from a systems level, and that savings may not directly impact loans a bank makes, but at a systemic level has an end result of reducing loans. It’s not clear at what level they’re taking about here. A few days ago there was a post on here about how technical documentation only makes sense if you already have a working mental model of the system you’re working with. I feel like this may be an example of this.