This article is pretty bad. In theory, in aggregate, it's sort of right. But it doesn't track the flow of what happens after that loan is made, it doesn't discu

This article is pretty bad. In theory, in aggregate, it's sort of right. But it doesn't track the flow of what happens after that loan is made, it doesn't discuss how credit spends just like money (ie, anyone can create "money" depending on how you define it), and it doesn't discuss capital requirements (either from a reg perspective or a practical risk management perspective) other than a passing note. People/companies don't borrow money and then leave it in the bank which lent them the money. The money typically gets wired somewhere, and then the bank which "created money" has to actually have the money in their account with the central bank or have assets to give another bank so they'll give some of their central bank reserves. So, their description is true for a hot minute, then lacking. A bank can't just keep lending and lending. As for limits on lending, both for a specific bank and in aggregate - they don't discuss capital requirements or anything about Basel III... It's mentioned in passing with a reference to another paper, as though it's a minor detail. It isn't. The limit on lending could be the limit they lay out... but in practice the capital requirements mean that the amount of lending is severely constrained, both in quantity and the types of loans and the types of customers. Just look at a balance sheet of an actual bank... (like https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/72971/000007297122000205/wfc-20220930.htm https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/72971/000007... , page 62). Using the BOE paper you'd assume there are banks levered 1000-1. There are not.