You might try the credit-based explanation by the Bank of England [1] (linked to in the above article).

I think the tricky bit is that when a bank makes a loan, it creates money, but usually in other banks. The loan-making process creates money "out of nowhere" by increasing a bank balance, but since the borrower got the loan for a reason, they will usually withdraw it and pay other people, increasing bank deposits somewhere else.

The bank needs funds to cover the withdrawal, so from their point of view, it doesn't look like free money to them. They need funding to make loans and they only make money on the spread in interest rates.

But there is new money in other banks as a result of them making the loan.

(A technical point: even without funding, the bank has a new asset - the loan itself. They could sell that to raise funds. Banks can "originate" loans they don't keep.)

The end result is that a new loan exists and there is also new money, somewhere. Whichever banks have more deposits will be able to afford to make (or buy) more loans.

[1] https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-...

I haven't read it but I've been recommended Debt: The First 5,000 Years by David Graeber numerous times.

It’s a highly verbose book but worth a read. Graeber makes some solid points such as money didn’t evolve from bartering but instead evolved from debt

Lombard Street