I meant the same by the phrase as you did. Whether the practice is legal or not in America I don't know; I suspect the question has been left indeterminate, much as it is here. I had hoped that the Constitution had made a definite pronouncement, but it seems not. Oh well.

But in a concrete sense, in the sense that money exists after the act which (a) did not exist before, (b) was not created by the government, and (c) exists in the form of a debt to the bank which must be repaid even though it cost them nothing to create it, yes, the banks create money. If I were to hack into my bank account and create a million pounds, there would be certain objections raised, but a junior bank clerk can do it, and there is no difference under the law between us. Why should an act be legal for one ordinary citizen and not legal for another?

I think it's clear that Jefferson was talking about what was going on at the time. He wasn't right about everything, no, but I think what he said made sense at the time and still makes sense now, and if that sense escapes the people who write the laws, the people who interpret the laws, the people who enforce the laws, or everyone else on the planet, that doesn't make it make any less sense to me.