Money not not not designed as a commodity.
Designed as a universal means of exchange to overcome the shortcomings of the barter system.
So?
Money, like other inventions, has continued to develop to meet other needs. Originally money was primarily used to trade with large armies. Most trade, for most people, was done through an honors system (not really barter per say). However, when large armies came, people used money. They left, you still had the gold and and silver.
Anyway, how and why money developed isn't necessarily important to the question of interest. In a free market, money and its use is decided freely. Money
s come into existence, compete and exist, or don't - all based on subjective value. Which is sort of like a religion. You own your money. You don't own it's value. You can do anything you wish with it - as long as others agree to trade with you. If not, it's nothing more than any other abstract belief. You may buy something, invest in something, give it away, or lend it, etc...
In a normally functioning economy, when there is a lot of money, the price of items goes up because there's a lot of money and a limited supply of stuff. You can lend the money to a bank (who will pay you for it's use, aka: interest). When the bank has little money (limited supply), then it has to offer higher interest (pay for limited money). When the bank has a lot of money, it will offer lower interest (or is not interested, thus zero). No different than when blueberries come into season.
When you agree to give your money to a bank, you agree that you may lose it all (which allowed for the invention of insurance - another great product). You are now risking the possibly of future consumption and the interest needed to offset that risk will either be freely agreed to by you, or you won't lend it to a bank. Suppose the price of cotton is sky high. This signals that there is a limited supply relative to demand. Farmers need your money. They could go to you, but why do that when they can more easily go to a bank? You CAN lend your money. No one is telling you, you cannot. But banks do it better. So people prefer to use them instead and freely choose to do so.
That aside, we do not use money. We use fiat currency. Not only that, but we sell T-bonds on the labor of unborn Nation State citizens and force them to repay - even though they had no say in their Nation of Birth, how the debt was spent/wasted, and face life in prison if they refuse to repay their grandparents largess and transgressions. We can thank the Progressive Socialists of the late 1800s for giving us the Central Bank, it's fiat currency, and our income tax: all of which now dominates our economy and dictates our way of lives.
Those T Bonds? European Socialists are willing to do more than just sell obligations on the next few generations of Nation State citizens (stealing their future prosperity), their 'Leaders' are more than happy to destroy their societies themselves (through the immigration of tax payers) in order to repay these Central Banks their fiat currency and continue to meet these obligations. This would never happen in a free market using money - such currencies, would have ceased to exist, along with their obligations, decades ago. Lucky for Central Banks, they have police states, immoral populations wanting free-shit (gim-me-dats / progressive voters), 12 years of government 'education' and large militaries willing to steal other people's shit, to help enforce repayment of those obligations.
Fiat currency is the real con.
