I don't understand economics well enough to be able to evaluate your proposal or your theory of how it work. I understand now the difference between only the wealthy few being able to borrow a lot of money, and all of humanity doing so.

Certainly, the latter system would be more equitable, but I take it banks would balk at the idea of loaning money to billions of people who have no collateral to pay it back. If the money's not meant to be paid back or if it's the interest on money creation to be paid to everyone, that would be a gift of free money rather than a case of borrowing. Wealthy people borrow from banks because they have collateral, so the premise would be that wealthy people alone deserve to borrow so much. Of course, the system is out of whack and there are frauds and nepotistic arrangements galore.

But you seem to be saying that all people do deserve that interest on banking activity, just by participating in the global system.

Can you clarify this question of who deserves what and why? I certainly agree that no one has ever done enough singlehandedly to deserve exclusive access to billions of dollars. Plutocracies are always unjust. But what exactly is the unfair borrowing the wealthy are doing? Can you give an example? Would this include government bailouts? You're saying they borrow money into existence, but that's not the same as paying humanity a gift of interest on other borrowing.

I'm slow on the uptake here, because I despise economics and therefore don't know enough about it.