Shelling Out: The Origins of Money (2002)
nakamotoinstitute.org
nakamotoinstitute.org
[1] https://libcom.org/files/__Debt__The_First_5_000_Years.pdf
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/09/in-defense-of-david-graeb...
"Reading Debt is no substitute for serious study of economics... But if you do get your economics from Debt, you will at least come away with a few important ideas. First, that money contracts come before, and are about more than, the exchange of goods. Second, that some monetary systems are based on commodity money and some are based on credit, and the two behave quite differently. Third, and most urgently, that decisions about the money supply are not "too important and technical" for democracy. On the contrary, they are too important and inherently political to be made any way except democratically.
"Debt’s economic arguments are not always presented as clearly as they could be. But none of them are present at all in the typical economics textbook. They are, on the other hand, found in some form or another in the thought of a great many rebels, heretics and reformers within the economics profession."
The thing about studying economics is that unless you do it to considerable depth, you'll come away with the wrong conclusions.
Undergraduate economics textbooks teach that central banks try to control the supply of money as an explicit target, and that commercial banks lend out their reserves - both of which are objectively false.
Debt has its flaws, but it at least gets the basic mechanics correct.
I've pieced together what I can from reading blogs (Frances Coppola [0] is very informative in this regard). The Bank of England wrote a document explaining their view of the process of money creation [1], which is widely accepted as correct.
Edit: actually, this might do: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/money-banking
[0] http://www.coppolacomment.com/
[1] http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarte...
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5c4DinvHeF2eEpKbFZTOU5CUWs/...