> doesn't apply to Nvidia extending trade credit

Of course it does. It's M4. Which turns into M3 through the money markets. Which creates M1 through banks.

Nvidia extending commitments creates M1 via a similar mechanism to the Fed buying Treasuries, thereby increasing deposits at the Federal Reserve (MB) which in turn prompts banks to increase M1.

> and this description of bank money creation isn't even the accepted version today anyway

What description? Most money in modern economics is created by banks. But nothing requires that to be the main mode. We're nowhere close to it, but a high-tariff economy would be expected to rely more on producers than consumers and thus their credit versus consumer deposits.

> If the OP's production company can't actually deliver $100 million of goods, someone has to write it down and no amount of velocity makes the company solvent

The $500 billion isn't net-sixty trade credit, it's long-term commitments for capital expenditure by third parties.

> Trying to make this a monetary argument when it's not actually weakens the circularity argument

No? They're separate issues.

Credit creates money. That's real and separate from to whom one is extending credit, in Nvidia's case, to its customers so they can buy more from Nvidia.