My response to "How money is created" follows:
First of all, money is NOT an IOU. When a dollar is created the way it should be, such as with the case of the Greenbacks created under Abe Lincoln to win the Civil War in the US (that is, without borrowing, without issuing bonds), the dollar does not represent anyone owing anything. It is simply sitting there ready to be used to transact. There is NO debt, hence no owing. Period. I don't care what any MMTer tells you to the contrary. They are simply engaging in semantical arguments that are utterly meaningless from any practical standpoint.
When a dollar is created with a corresponding bond issue, the dollar itself still does NOT represent an IOU.
The one and only reason MMTers claim otherwise is because the federal government uses double-entry bookkeeping as if it's a corporation or household that can't simply create money without entering it as a liability. The entire point of raising that "money is an IOU" is completely pointless! It's a distraction, always has been, always will be.
It adds totally needless complexity to selling the People on the idea that the People's government can create all the money needed, without borrowing, and without price inflation provided the money supply and its velocity circulating through the economy is matched to the supply of goods and services desired.
Explain how an accounting identity that isn't even appropriate to the government issuing money directly without borrowing helps convince the People to vote for doing just that: issuing the money that way. You can't. So stop saying it! It's ignorant.
Yes, it bugs me. I want the People to understand, not to be confused and think money is mysterious or that economics is hard. Economics is as easy as anything else.
Second, stop using the Bank of England's statement as if it applies to the Federal Reserve System. It doesn't. They don't have fractional reserve banking in the UK. WE DO in the US. The Fed still requires 10% regular reserves on all outstanding loans made by US commercial banks. That 10% must belong to the given commercial bank or be borrowed from another such bank, not the Fed itself.
Yes, the Fed can inject reserves into the Fed's own system, but that's not the same issue. It the Fed doesn't so inject, the commercial banks are stuck inter borrowing a fixed amount. They CAN NOT issue all the loans they feel like, not without facing penalties or more from the Fed, which has no choice but to impose discipline if the Fed wants to stay in control, which it does.
If you're going to teach the People, teach them correctly.