Okay, I'll be more specific.
"The rules of the money system have shifted. The majority of money that now changes hands does so electronically. As a result, far more than ever before, new money is not issued by the state but by banks."
This isn't a new development and electronic transfer has nothing to do with it. The majority of money has been a product of banks for hundreds of years. In Scotland during the 18th Century, the government had no part in issuing money at all; almost 100 percent of the money supply was created by private banks. Scotland also had one of the most stable and productive banking systems in the world. Oh, and by the way, they didn't have electronic money transfer back then, so Huber & Robertson made an oopsie with that one.
They are either ignorant or willfully misleading about a bunch of things. Commercial banks can only create money in proportion to what are called 'reserves', and bank reserves take the form of something called 'base money'. While commercial banks can create money, they cannot create base money. The issuance of base money is the sole prerogative to central banks, like the Bank of England in the United Kingdom, Federal Reserve in the United States, or European Central Bank in the Eurozone.
These central banks indirectly control the total money supply by creating or destroying the base money that commercial banks depends on for reserves. If the central bank thinks that commercial banks are creating too much money, then the central bank just tightens its monetary policy (i.e. reduces the supply of base money) until the commercial banks are forced to reduce their own issues of money. The upshot is that while governments do not issue everything we call 'money', like bank deposits, they control the base money on which it all depends.
An understandable confusion, in which Huber & Robertson appear to be mired, is the status of paper or metal money (i.e. currency). Currency is an already tiny and shrinking part of the money supply, and the proliferation of means of electronic transfer has something to do with that. However, Huber & Robertson imply that this reduces the government's part in money creation, but it doesn't at all. Currency is part of the supply of base money, but only a tiny part and it's insignificant to the government's control of the money supply. To suggest otherwise betrays a gross misunderstanding of the subject matter; this is introductory level stuff.
The state receives public revenues from issuing cash, but banks make private profits. The benefits of the money system are therefore being captured by the financial services industry rather than shared democratically.The seignoirage earned from issuing cash is minuscule and has been for at least 100 years. The government shouldn't even bother. Private banks are perfectly capable of issuing bits of paper and metal, like they continue to do in Scotland to this day. Seignoirage from the issuance of base money, of which currency is just a tiny part, is most important to the government. You see, central banks alter the supply of money from buying and selling government bonds; they gradually accumulate government debt on their balance sheet. When the debt eventially gets paid, most of the money goes straight back to the government: it's basically a free loan.
The profit earned by commerical banks from issuing money is simply the profit earned from financial intermediation, not seignoirage. Huber & Robertson seem to not recognise this distinction, but it's very important. Seignoirage is a stealth tax imposed by inflation, while financial intermediation is neither a tax nor inflationary. It's not like commercial banks are taking away the government's seignoirage; they just can't do that. Commercial banks are completely beholden to the whims of government central banks and regulators, and they can create money only at the central banks' pleasure.
Alright, that's all for now. The rest of it is a garbled mess too, but only so many hours in one day.