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