Das geht alles am eigentlichen Punkt vorbei, dass dem gewährten Kredit immer ein (hoffentlich) werthaltiger Anspruch auf der Gegenseite entsprechen muss. Sonst gäbe es ja keine Limitierung hinsichtlich der Kreditvergabe. Mittels Kredit geschaffenes Buchgeld gründet auf einklagbaren Ansprüchen gegen den Kreditnehmer, weil Geld vor allem ein rechtliches Konstrukt ist. Der Anspruch ist der Gegenwert
The legal code is not the only code that configures wealth; accounting rules play a critical role as well. Financial assets are created at the intersection of legal, accounting, and tax rules. The double bookkeeping system, which originated in Italy, not in England (the origin of the common law) is key for the ability of banks’ to seemingly create money out of thin air; not public but private money, with a call-option to convert this private money into public money. As is well understood, banks do not need depositors to lend them money to lend or invest it. A bank only needs to credit the account of the borrower, debiting its own balance sheet, and credit the bank with a claim against the borrower on its asset side. By the stroke of a pen the balance sheet of the bank was expanded, and magically without any cash inflows. The balance sheet balances, because the outflow is balanced by a promise to repayment, which appears on the asset side even though at this point it is only an expectation. This is where depositors help, because their cash provides the bank with the liquid means to pay cash to its own creditors, including other depositors. But it is not critical for the money creation process as such. (…)
law is used to coin not just bank money, but any form that private money can take by grafting the modules of the legal code onto simple promises to pay – from bills of exchange to securitized assets and their derivatives. Every privately minted debt instrument is a bet on the ability to convert the repayment promise into state money on demand. Incidentally, this applies also to most cryptocurrencies. Recall that convertibility is one of the attributes of capital; it locks in past gains and thereby helps financial assets attain durability. Add to this the simple truth that the debt of one person or entity is always someone else’s credit. This accounting logic leads, in the last instance to the conclusion that most, if not all, private money is a contingent liability on the state. Whether or not a contingent becomes an actual liability depends on the threat a massive default on a given asset class poses for the system as a whole. Not every bank is too big or too interdependent to fail; neither is every asset too toxic to lead to its own demise and that of its current holder. Yet, when the perceived costs for refusing to take the “put” that private actors have placed on the balance sheet of the government or its central bank become too big, the contingent liability will be converted into actual bailout. A possible solution to this problem is to curtail the private-money creation machine. As far as I can see, however, no state has ever been able to completely suppress private money creation, although socialist regimes have come close. There is, however, another aspect of the accounting logic, according to which debt and credit mirror each other, that is worth mentioning. The accounting logic alone says little about whether debt and credit are equal not only in nominal terms, but in the sense of being equally empowered; this question is determined in law, not in accounting.
(Pistor: The Code of Capital)