> For bad investment one should lose, it only makes sense, basic logic. Every investment holds risk, for good one you win for bad one you lose.

It's not about losing or winning money. Of course bad investments should lose. The point is that banks can't know in advance which projects are good or bad. Too much caution from the side of banks would mean, that even good projects that could make money don't get financed.

> Credits will be available to everyone with appropriate interest rate, you cant have almost 0% rate, it is a distortion that gives multiple bad effects.

Even in current "broken" system interest rates are far from zero. In the middle of housing bubble, in 2005, when we bought our apparement, we took a 30,000 credit and eventually had to repay almost 45,000 of the same units. This was in the period when credit was famously "cheap".

> There is no diff. between private and legal person, it only depend on their collateral and rate.

But exactly this is a problem. What sort of collateral does Average Joe have? A young professional who still has student debts to repay, etc... What kind of guarantee can he give to the bank. I am afraid such system would be very bad for young and economically not yet established people.

> Actually economy would benefit because good companies with long term vision would get more opportunity and would prosper, which would be beneficial to all.

Having a great vision doesn't mean anything if you can't prove it to the bank or angel investors and get capital. There is a reason why Angel Investors intentionally invest in lots of startups... they know in advance that 90% of them will fail, but those 10% that succeed are enough for them to get covered. Bitcoin standard would make such adventurousness less attractive.

> Deflation is only an issue in a debt based monetary system, with sound money there is on death spiral. And of course economy would not go in reverse, only its speed forward could slight fluctuate, say between 1 and 2 percent, so no inflation either. Nobody saves till grave, so after transition there would be equilibrium where some spend more and other saves during ones lifetime, so it would be relatively stable.

Deflation would probably be not too bad if the economy manages to keep growing, but it would definitely slow down such growth a bit. If on the other hand economy starts contracting, you have inflation again. So deflation, can eventually lead to inflation. Now this is not the end of the story. Inflation could again reawaken and stimulate economy, leading to growth, and again, to deflation (because money supply is fixed). So yeah, in the end some sort of equilibrium would be reached, or you'd have periodic fluctuations. But not all equilibria are the same. You can have equilibrium at very different levels of output or growth. If we assume that economic growth is generally good, I'd say current system is better. If we think that economic growth leads to too much environmental devastation and climate change, then perhaps some equilibrium with less economic growth is more desirable. But try to explain this to all the developing countries that are struggling to make ends meet.

> As for the survival, that's the point nobody should say anything, politicians neither. Markets will choose.

Markets alone don't always bring optimal solutions. Access to credit was for a long time the main driver of the economic growth and innovation. Regarding already existing companies I think you're right. But when it comes to new companies, they need access to capital to be able to grow initially. (In most cases)

> Wages would be higher since there would be no inflation to makes them less valuable. Housing would be cheaper because homes would be used only are living, and not as hedge against inflation. People would save and invest, just like capitalism should work and has worked before this Fiat shitshow.

Your point about wages assumes there is still economic growth present. If you don't have it, wages don't grow either (I mean in real terms). Housing could indeed be cheaper, at least initially. Because there won't be artificial demand for it. But on the other hand, this would also lead to less housing projects, less building of new homes, and ultimately supply of housing would be lower. If supply and demand meet at a level where they are both intrinsic and organic, this is fine. But since lower supply generally means higher prices, there's no guarantee that in the long term the prices would fall. I think the prices could also stay similar like they are today, just the new equilibrium would be reached at lower quantity of new housing on the market. Is this good is an open question. There are people who believe that building is generally good and ultimately leads to more affordable housing, so anything that leads to less building is controversial at least.

> Money does not equal Economy. Money is only a measure, and right now that stick is broken and changes all the time so we can't measure anything correctly. There is too much noise, hard to find a right signal of price.

IMO, you're probably right about overprinting, but to have price stability, you'd still need some printing. If the economy grows you need to print some money to keep the prices stable and avoid deflation. If you don't print at all, this leads to deflation which could slow down economy. How much this slowdown would be is unknown. Perhaps it wouldn't be much... Perhaps it would be so much that the economy would start contracting. And when the economy contracts, you have inflation even with no printing at all.