> My bank can loan out 10x its reserves. It only can find enough good risks to loan out 0.5x.
Your bank can loan out as much as it wants as long as it's happy with the risk, regardless of its current holding. This is because the loans come first, and any reserve requirements are then taken care of after the fact. So if there's a good loan opportunity it is issued, and then the bank goes looking for available reserves.
And this assumes reserve requirements even exist, which they have not in several countries for decades:
Reserve requirement are irrelevant to loan creation. Per the Fed itself:
> Changes in reserves are unrelated to changes in lending, and open market operations do not have a direct impact on lending. We conclude that the textbook treatment of money in the transmission mechanism can be rejected.
The idea of MMT is that money creation is mainly caused by commercial banks willing to lend (due to market considerations), not by central banks issuing reserves.
Even some central banks openly take this point of view, these days:
Good point – the ideas of MMT go further than that (and become more controversial as they do), but there is quite some overlap.
I also don't think that there is consensus across central banks about how money creation actually works, which is pretty fascinating, considering that they all do more or less the same thing (at least the ones that aren't pegging their currency to another one), but apparently under completely different models...
There probably isn't a broad consensus among central banks on the whole ecosystem of money creation (nor among the economists in any particular central bank), but the things mentioned in that BoE article are really just trivial economic facts everyone agrees on. Banks create money by lending, has been that way since the ancients.
I don’t understand your comment.