yeah, agreed largely. I still think "private ownership" can mean more directly that the state protects the idea of particular people owning things, e.g. someone

yeah, agreed largely. I still think "private ownership" can mean more directly that the state protects the idea of particular people owning things, e.g. someone or some legal entity "owning" some land. And that could happen legally in a number of ways, not all involving currency or related debt instruments. The state could, in principle, seize the land, but as long as the state allows private entities to control it, it can be said to be "privately owned". As far as creating currency, as I understand it, it works out to be a lot more effective and efficient for the state to issue that debt-currency (and create demand for it through taxing it back) and thus create markets using it than to directly manage resources through a top-down bureaucracy. (To be simplistic admittedly)