What they say is:
Loans are made without any need for there to be deposits in a bank;
Loans are quite emphatically not the recycling of depositors’ money: all loans are made from newly created money;
All savings are therefore created by lending, representing the unspent and so deposited part of funds created out of monies borrowed;
There is, then, no such thing as fractional reserve banking and those thinking so; those economics text books that say there is; and those who based their economic thinking on this idea, are all wrong.
There are some things I should add I do not agree with in the video: the description of how QE works is just wishful thinking and not what has actually happened. It is also not true that QE has a cost: the interest paid on reserves is in real terms negative at present.
And there are things the video does not say. In particular it does not make clear that because of the argument made, savings do not serve a useful economic function as a source of funding for investment in the modern economy when that role has been supplanted by credit. Nor does it say that as a result the entire saving sector can in that case to some degree be seen as rent seeking and the whole edifice of the financial services industry that is built upon it a largely pointless activity that does not add value. But I won’t develop that argument further here: my point at present is to reiterate that savings are not required to permit banks to make loans. This is a myth now known to be wholly untrue. Those who say otherwise are from the economic dark ages.
We don’t have fractional reserve banking?
Then how can a bank suffer a run?
He’s just spiralling ever further up his own colon, isn’t he?