Atheros, I find it odd how you are presenting a simplification that ignores my point as as a refutation.
I really doubt that Keynesianism, with its focus on spending, liquidity-preference and marginal efficiency of capital, would support your claims. While I am not an expert in Keynesianism, this is what Keynes says in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money:
The second differentia of money is that it has an elasticity of substitution equal, or nearly equal, to zero which means that as the exchange value of money rises there is no tendency to substitute some other factor for it;— except, perhaps, to some trifling extent, where the money-commodity is also used in manufacture or the arts. This follows from the peculiarity of money that its utility is solely derived from its exchange-value, so that the two rise and fall pari passu, with the result that as the exchange value of money rises there is no motive or tendency, as in the case of rent-factors, to substitute some other factor for it.
(I interpret this as liquidity being the determining factor for money)
The complex of rates of interest would simply be an expression of the terms on which the banking system is prepared to acquire or part with debts; and the quantity of money would be the amount which can find a home in the possession of individuals who — after taking account of all relevant circumstances — prefer the control of liquid cash to parting with it in exchange for a debt on the terms indicated by the market rate of interest.
(I interpret this as Keynes not considering deposits a part of the "quantity of money", i.e. what we call money supply).
The quantity of money determines the supply of liquid resources, and hence the rate of interest, and in conjunction with other factors (particularly that of confidence) the inducement to invest, which in turn fixes the equilibrium level of incomes, output and employment and (at each stage in conjunction with other factors) the price-level as a whole through the influences of supply and demand thus established.
(again, this seems to indicate that liquidity is a determining factor)
Keynes is particularly difficult to read, so I could very well be misinterpreting him. But I still don't see how he supports your position.
Furthermore, in the only link you provide yourself on the wiki article, says:
As most bank deposits are treated as money in their own right, fractional reserve banking increases the money supply, and banks are said to create money.
Nevertheless, since I'm not an adherent of keynesianism, I don't care much if Atheros gets that interpretation right or wrong. I have no reason to object to people presenting whatever they want as a Keynesian viewpoint. I'll however rewrite the Austrian section to eliminate non-Austrian influences, add references and explain money supply definition from the Austrian perspective.
As a side remark, I find it funny how, allegedly, both Austrians and Keynesians see Bitcoin as doing exactly what they want, even though these goals are opposed.