i don’t think anybody is

i don't think anybody is denying that banks do issue loans before deposits in many cases. This was the issue in the Keen V. Klugman debate, IIRC. After all, i have never had an encounter with a bank where they said , "hang on , i'll just check if we have the money to lend you." If i had a billion in liquidity capital, of course, i could begin lending out cash without a deposit being made. Isn't this the basis of loan-sharking? I think the capitalist term is "shadow-banking". The fable being referred to is that central banks  "direct exogenous control over bank expansion, based on a reserve supply function – which is a fiction." I think a position reflecting the websites anti-Fed, anti-government interference, even if the sites sub-title is "economics without politics" I certainly expected the articles "conflicting" statements to be highlighted. What the article's point is that the day of reckoning will always come when the balance sheets has to be provided to investors and regulatory authorities. Money in has to be at least equal to money out with a little bit extra held in reserve. There is no magical money/credit ""created" to point to to prove solvencyThe article indicates that "loans make deposits" is a temporary condition because it should be stressed that the banking system is never static, it is fluid. You may take a snap-shot but that will not be truly representative. My quote of Bloomberg's cash deposits exceeding lending is an example of that. It was just a moment in time. From the website Monetary Realism website:" ‘loans create deposits’ is correct as an observation. Nevertheless, there is a larger context for deposits, which includes their fate after they have been created. Deposits are used to repay loans, resulting in the ‘death’ of both loan and deposit. But there is more. As part of the birth/death analogy, there is the lifetime of loans and deposits to consider. This sequence of birth, life, and death in total may be helpful in putting ‘loans create deposits’ into a broader context. There is potential for confusion if ‘loans create deposits’ is embraced too enthusiastically as the defining characteristic, without considering the full life cycle of loans and deposits. Indeed, we shall see further below that ‘deposits fund loans’ is as true as ‘loans create deposits’ and that there is no contradiction between these two things."  So perhaps we can put to bed any dispute between ourselves on this, as you say it is of less concern to you, and concentrate our argument  on the cause of recessions. Some blame the banking world, as you apparently do, by presenting crises as  financial instability. whereas the SPGB  rather than directing culpabilty as the instigators of a bust to one section of business , views banking problems are just an effect that exacerbates the crises, and perhaps prolongs it rather than offer a cure This is the fundamental difference between you and ourselves. We blame capitalism's inherent unplanned anarchy and find the causes of repeated crises with the system as a whole. You maintain that only a sector of the capitalist economy are the reason for those slumps, therefore it can be reformed and there is no need for any talk of a socialist revolution to replace capitalism. I suggest that such an approach overlooks the variety of banking forms over history that has existed yet economic crisis still occurred. Capitalism too has had different manifestations as it evolved, but when Marxists look for the cause of recession in all those, it finds the shared root of rot within these crises. Monetary Realism describes "monetary system is basically a bookkeeping device for the intermediation of real economic activity." Marxists say that the real economic activity is the workers' labour in what he or she produces.