Well, we have a large and growing body of non-productive persons who claim a share of what is produced for moving things and people around. They are the commercial class and the entrepreneurs and the “managers” whose functions and behaviors are actually left out of economic calculations. Why? In large part because economists (who are themselves non-productive) took over the binary model which accountants had developed in the interest of promoting accuracy in their summations. (If everything is counted twice and the resukts are the same, there is a better chance the sums are correct). The reality, of course, is that there are many more players in an economy than the two designated agents (sellers and buyers or producers and users). And then there is the fact that currency, an inanimate participant in any transaction, has been transformed from a practical universally available tool into an agent of restriction and control.
If currency/money were a simple measuring tool like the inch or the ounce or even just a symbol like the script we use to represent meaningful sounds, rather than being rationed and distributed to privileged entities, then it could not be used to regulate and restrict enterprise as it is. It is my sense that the accumulation of currency by select individual players, which is facilitated by exempting them from returning it to the issuer, is designed to disguise the interest in keeping currency relatively scarce. Congress is supposed to distribute the currency into the economy as needed. Instead, it distributes some and lets the Treasury distribute some to designated middlemen, the banks, who then determine who is qualified to receive and use more of this inherently unlimited asset.
Currency is an instrument of control. This leaves us with the question,”why are public servants trying to exercise control?”