Read each claim in both directions
The instrument table distinguishes deposits, reserves, and government bonds by their issuers. Read a row as a relationship, not merely an amount. A household's deposit of 100 means a commercial bank owes that household. A bank's reserves of 100 mean the central bank owes that bank. An investor's government bond of 100 means the government has a debt obligation under the bond contract. Equal numbers in the rows do not make the instruments interchangeable or imply that one particular balance backs another.
To test the difference, imagine that the investor needs to pay a supplier who accepts bank transfers but not bonds. Owning a bond worth 100 is not yet the same as owning a transaction deposit of 100. The investor might sell the bond to another customer, borrow against it, or wait for a contractual payment. Each route requires another party or a later date. The ability to meet a payment when it falls due is liquidity. An asset can have value yet provide insufficient liquidity for today's bill.
For an additional paper sale, assume the bond has an agreed transaction price of 100 and both parties use one bank. The buyer gives up 100 of deposits and receives the bond. The seller gives up the bond and receives 100 of deposits. The bank changes the ownership of its deposit liabilities but does not issue another 100 in this exchange. The government still owes the bond payment to its new owner. Neither the face amount owed nor total customer deposits rises merely because ownership changes.
Now contrast a loan with a transfer that creates no repayment obligation. A household beginning with a 30 deposit and no debt borrows 50. Its deposit becomes 80 and its loan obligation becomes 50. Subtract debt from its financial assets to get net financial wealth of 30, unchanged at origination. If a relative instead gives it an existing deposit of 50, its own net financial wealth rises to 80. The relative's falls by 50. The recipient's gain is not automatically a gain for the two households together.
Buying a real asset changes the analysis again. Return to the borrowing case and suppose the household spends the borrowed 50 on a tool priced at 50. After purchase it holds its original deposit of 30, a tool valued at 50, and debt of 50. Its net worth remains 30 at that valuation. The tool might help produce future output, wear out, or sell for less than 50. Those possibilities concern real production and valuation. The loan's deposit entries alone establish neither a productive success nor an inevitable loss.
This distinction prevents a common counting error. A loan contract can support a payment without creating the purchased object. If the tool already existed, the transaction changes its owner. If someone makes a new tool, production uses materials and work as well as financing. To explain an increase in real wealth, identify the resulting goods or productive capacity and their costs. To explain an increase in money, identify the new monetary liability and its holder. These are related questions with different evidence.