Banks don't lend money, they create it from debit. As debit is potentially unlimited, so is the supply of money. The opposite is also true: no debit, no money.
Just watched an interesting animation about the fractional reserve banking system, and how really money is debt.
moneyasdebit.com | On YouTube (while it lasts)
I'm well familiar with exponential curves, and this revelation terrifies me. Suddenly it all falls into place - the seemlingly endless appetite for the consumption of resources, the futility of "voting" one politcal party into power over another in a "democratic" government, the pull in society towards becoming indebted to banks in order to be able to provide a home for our families.
The presentation is definitely an eye opener. Admitedly, I was naive (or lazy) enough to believe tha banks mostly leant money they'd acquired from deposits and their own capital raising exercises. At the same time, it doesn't present any concise alternatives, but made hints at a few possibilities.
One sounded a lot like socialism, another reminded me a lot of Japan's "construction economy", where the government pours money into the economy in the form of public works like bridges, roads, infrastructure etc, and banks use these to only lend against value, as opposed to debit. Or at least I think that's what was suggested.
Renewable energy was presented as the most promising alternative to creating money from debit - only use, and re-use what limited resources we have. Maybe that's why in recent times most attempts to bring renewable energy sources to market have been suppressed.
Maybe this is part of the reason why the real estate situation here in Australia has gotten so out of hand - if people weren't taking on loans to buy houses, the banks would run out of money. At the same time, the amount being borrowed must increase infinitely and that's the point that's so easy to miss when ignorantly believing the misconception that money is leant against value and not debit. As most houses are bought with money borrowed against other debits, the average house price must allways rise, regardless of it's rate of change relative to the average income and cost of living.
Right now in Ausralia it is terribly askew, with the mean house price in Sydney of about $500K being about 10 times the averge income of maybe $50K, while a mortgage for that amount requires a combined income of $145K/year to pay off the interest and feed the insatiable appetite of the fractional reserve banking system.
It's also now the main reason why I never enrolled to vote, and will never be able to buy a house in Australia. Japan on the other hand...