If I borrow money I take it away from the next person. Assuming there is a limited money supply, the Nedici family may have required all of the wealthy individuals of that time and place to buy bonds. An informant told me about this, and, if true, it implies that the wealthy had to go into debt, and, that the Nedicis were taking money away from other persons.
In this sense, we can assume that to borrow another person's money is not to become obligated to that person, as one would perhaps expect, but rather to obligate the one lending, and also that if I borrow money I take it away from the next person.
It is a situation one can never get a handle on. It is always an "if" followed by a "then," or consequence. Yet, if the "if" was not there, the consequence becomes a different one. It's always ambiguous.
If we now switch back to what is the expected situation or the one that I would expect, according to intuition or native knowledge, or not knowing any better, wherein it is the lender who has power and who obligates the borrower and the borrower who now has an albatross(or whatever) around his neck, we have a whole different series of reactions and expectations.
All this is being painted, by the artist, you know. He operates by staying at a remove from all this hoodwinking and shennadling and sees the human side of it and makes a great painting.