Anatole, re “Store of Value” you’re right that the text needs to be rewritten as it’s not sufficiently clear. In fact not clear at all. The point is of course that the company takes out the loan and then spends the money — companies and people rarely borrow money to stash it under the mattress! Money is borrowed for a purpose and spent. So what I meant in the example is that the money held by the holders actually corresponds to the money owed by the company. And if the holders do not spend it, the company gets bust and the money becomes worthless.
Let’s take an extreme example: a remote village where people are mostly self-sufficient, except for slobbers — delicious seasonal cakes. There is exactly one slobber factory, and one bank whose only borrower is the slobber factory. Every year, the factory borrows money from the bank (who, as usual, creates the money in the process). With this money, the factory buys supplies from the population and pays its seasonal workers, who are of course also its customers. So at the end of the yearly production cycle the factory is filled with slobbers, it has spent all its money and had an outstanding debt to the bank. That debt happens to correspond precisely to the money held by the villagers (who also happen to be the owners of the bank).
Maybe now you are starting to see what I meant when I wrote that money has to be spent in order to have value?
Imagine that the villagers refuse to buy the slobbers because they suddenly find them too expensive, or because they have recently read the pamphlets of the local barber, one Marl Karx, who keeps trolling the factory owner out of jealousy. After a while, the slobbers start rotting and in a desperate move the factory owner dumps them in front of the bank.
I ask you: how much is the villager’s money worth now?