What you call “projections” are just questions about your proposal, written from the point of view of a devil’s advocate. I took that position for the reasons I stated: I’m sympathetic to some such shifting of economic priorities, but the details are over my head. So I can’t evaluate whether it would work in economic terms. Thus, I threw some critical questions at you, from the standpoint of a virtual ignoramus about technical economical matters.

The jargon I’m referring to is the technical language you’re using to explain the economic mechanisms of how your proposal would work. For example, “When money has a fixed cost of creation and maintenance, and that cost is a self referential mathematical function, the value is a function of cost. The value is fixed. So exchange is fixed, so there isn’t any exchange or bond market to affect market inflation. With ubiquitous access to 1.25% fixed value money for secure investment, any overcharging situations will be rapidly exploited.”

Yes, you’re writing in English, not in math. But English words can have natural or technical, artificial definitions, depending on the context. I have a feeling that an economist would be jumping down your throat in response to your explanations of how we might borrow money from humanity. But that’s not a job for me. Thanks for sharing these ideas.

The “forewarning” wasn’t a threat, of course. I meant that you should be aware that repeating your mantras wouldn’t help an economics ignoramus (and despiser) like me.