"Freedom" thread or something

There seems to be a long list of societal entities that big business needs protection from, especially in India: foreign competition, ecommerce players, NGOs and activists, the poor .  Makes one wonder whether perhaps they are the real needy ones that govt has been ignoring all the time. 

What have you heard/know about "endogenous money"?

I recently have read about a theory (fact?) that the classic: "Deposits are given out by the bank as loans", and "the central bank controls the money supply" notions are false. 

Supposedly, banks simply give out loans as they feel like, "creating the money out of thin air" and this creates some double entries, like the assets and liabilities of a consumer become the flip of the bank, I'm not quite sure to be honest. Anyway it means the system itself controls the money supply, and the Central  Bank cant do much about it. As banks create this money, they go to the CB so make up the difference, discount window I believe. 

I know CBs dont "control" the money supply but this notion seems difficult for me to grasp. You have any input? 

I can "get it" but I just am curious to the proof this is how things operate, and why does nearly everyone stick with the "banks are just intermediaries" notion? Supposedly the Bank of England has put out a paper saying things do work exactly as that, and other people have said the same. 

So, why the vast difference in mainstream opinion? Even in my money and baking class, it was how you deposit, a fraction kept, rest loaned out, that banks simply move money from patient to impatient and etc

Do deposits do nothing then? What even is the point of "fractional reserve banking " then? I'm confused 

Edit: I found it btw if you care, guess I'll give it a try: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf

I think Keynes did very meaningful work in defining an economic role for the state.  I am not really well versed in the history of economics so I cannot say if it was done before.  But it is certainly far removed from neo classical theory.  He tackled the question of how the state might mobilise savings to raise public investment which in turn would create jobs and thereby more demand, leading to more production and more jobs, etc.  The best application of Keynesianism was probably observed in East Asian economies.  I don't support their repression of household savings as well as taking away several civil liberties  as a means to the end.  But they have been far more successful than say India in propelling economic development through investment.  It took far too long for India's economic think tanks to appreciate the importance of high savings to push investment.  And even thereafter, nothing much has been done to deepen the reach of its financial sector to tap into savings locked in hard assets like gold and landholdings.  It would appear that, especially since the 60s, Keynesian theory was used to fund welfare in the Western economies and welfare can stimulate demand by putting money in the hands of customers but does not by itself create productive assets. The East Asian economies created both productive assets as well as physical and social infrastructure.  I am not saying their strategy did not have its own set of adverse consequences, but if the ultimate aim of government is the alleviation of poverty and providing a reasonable level of prosperity to many of its citizens, they were far more successful at that than India.