[JumpCrisscross]

> statement is obviously false

No, it isn’t, though misunderstanding it isn’t even fundamental to the flaw in your thinking. A couple of banks can create and destroy an infinite amount of money among them with no real effect. JPMorgan credits UBS a trillion trillion trillion dollars at the latter’s JPMorgan account at the same time UBS credits JPMorgan at its UBS account, and then they both undo it a moment later. No real effect. Hell, JPMorgan could create the money with no counterbalance so they could look at it how pretty it is for an indefinite amount of time. Same deal. Regulators won’t be happy, but that’s because of the potential effects of UBS trying to buy the Fed’s balance sheet.

It’s when the interbank market interacts with broader markets that anything real happens.

[LukeB42]

Again more bankster handwaving.

What need do banks have for that capability where the capability shouldn't clearly be criminalised?

[JumpCrisscross]

> What need do banks have for that capability where the capability shouldn't clearly be criminalised?

Banks don't legally have that capability.

The point wasn't that banks do this. It's that it would have the same-real world effect (again, outside regulatory action and law enforcement) as me writing you a trillion-dollar IOU.