Table: Three types and views of different money supply theories.

In accordance to BoE, McLeavy et al. (2014), Jakab/Kumhof (2015), IMF (2019) postulates money creation view as valid only ("Money creation not a theory but an accounting reality") – this view presented to OECD NAEC (Paris, 15. April 2019) includes monocausal explanation of the financial crisis: "Understanding of money creation ‘cyclical’, resurfacing after ‘heavy recessions’, as after 1930s and 2007-09." (IMF 2019, Gross/Siebenbrunner).

Note: For example they do not mention speculative credites (even during goldbased currencies and growing speculative wall street boom as before black thursday 1929) as causal for financial system fragility.

Criticism of one-sided presentation ("partially true") you can find within:

• Charles Goodhart (2017): The determination of the money supply, pp. 10 f.
  
• Frank Decker, Charles Goodhart (2021): Wilhelm Lautenbach’s credit mechanics – a precursor to the current money supply debate, pp. 31 ff.

„Credit mechanics overcomes a one-sided, bank-centric view of money creation, which is often encountered in monetary theory. [...] the money supply is influenced by the interplay of loan creation and repayment rates.“

– Frank Decker, Charles Goodhart (2018): Credit Mechanics, A precursor to the current money supply debate