Sorry for so many posts, but it is crucial to much of the recent 
discussion to define money correctly. It is the generally accepted 
medium of exchange. This is the way it has always been defined in 
theoretical economics. The fact that statisticians (and some 
"economists") need some measure to justify their pay cannot and does 
not change this basic definition. The proposition that the central 
bank exercises no significant control over the creation of money by 
banks seems to me like nonsense, and I do not believe that Roger 
advanced this proposition. Roger's message was about the ability of 
the central bank to control the destruction of bank-created money in 
a fractional reserve system.

By the way, if Roy Weintraub is looking for an example of a subject 
that is not part of the history of economics, try the central limit theorem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem

Pat Gunning