Should banks be allowed to create money?

[SPC]

No, fractional reserve banking using demand deposits creates multiple claims to the same good, which is a legal fiction. Instead, banks should only make loans using money from time deposits to eliminate the Schrödingerian logic needed to justify fractional reserve without causing economic stagnation.

[SPC]

The banks aren't really creating money. It's just an economic multiplier. Only Paultards care about this. If you want 100% reserve on your deposits, you can use a safety deposit box, but you'll have to pay for that.

A distinction without a difference:

[quote author=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation#Money_multiplier]The most common mechanism used to measure this increase in the money supply is typically called the money multiplier. It calculates the maximum amount of money that an initial deposit can be expanded to with a given reserve ratio – such a factor is called a multiplier. As a formula, if the reserve ratio is R, then the money multiplier m is the reciprocal,  and is the maximum amount of money commercial banks can legally create for a given quantity of reserves.

[SPC]

Your point is?

He is incorrect in denying fractional reserve loans constitute money creation; even a introductory macroeconomics teacher could tell you that.

[SPC]

Your point is?

He is incorrect in denying fractional reserve loans constitute money creation; even a introductory macroeconomics teacher could tell you that.

But he's saying the exact opposite. No new physical money is coming into being, but it is being created.

How do you obtain "money is being created" from "the banks aren't really creating money"?