I think what the author would take issue with is this notion of “has to.” His point is that non-bank corporations can empirically create money (ie people will treat the IOUs as money), even if they may not be legally permitted to do so.
I think it's splitting a very meaningless hair in a way that's totally misleading to say that "anyone can create money", when you mean "anyone can theoretically create money, they'll just land in jail fairly quickly"
It's like saying that nation-states don't have a monopoly of force, because I can shoot my neighbour, or that I support abortion but I think you should be jailed afterwards.
Only banks can create money without getting locked up in jail.
That's the important point, and this article adds or takes nothing, other than a very weird dodge with the justification that somehow legality isn't a primary consideration.
It's as interesting as saying you don't have to pay your taxes, (small print: because you can choose to go to jail instead).
