I’m sorry, it seems I misread what you wrote. That doesn’t contradict what I wrote.

Yes, if the money created is in the end kept in the system as a deposit it enables new loans (but it is not necessarily so if the money goes to someone that uses it to cancel a loan of their own, for example).

And due to the fractional reserve requirement the quantity of money cannot be increased without limit by commercial banks. That’s just a mathematical reality, notwithstanding the fact that it’s not usually a binding constraint.

Right, there's an asymptote that caps the maximum amount of money in a system based on some initial M1 and a reserve fraction. But in practice that doesn't get hit because not all money is lent, so per upthread I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that "banks create money" in the abstract.

We agree. But note that this is in the context of the following exchange:

  >> they don't have the right to print money the way a central bank does.
  > Yes, they do.

Where the response ignores that that limit exists (may not be relevant in practice but it is in theory: a commercial bank can only give the loans that it can support with its existing reserves or those it may have access to, while for a central bank sky is the limit).

That’s not how reserves work. In the US they can only be deposited at the Federal Reserve (the corresponding regional branch, in fact).

Not understanding the point. Money is fungible. If a bank gets $100 from somewhere, it has to deposit $10 to the corresponding regional branch of the Federal Reserve, but so what? There's no tracking of those specific dollars. They can deposit the ones they got that are "known" to be unreserved cash holdings or they can deposit ones that they just got from a wire transfer from a credit account issued by another bank.

The feedback loop is the point, and it remains.