> If money is the problem, then the solution is not to engage in petty social democratic welfare reforms, but to end the monopoly on currency and allow for communities and individuals to coordinate savings-investment decisions and account for their local capital using the denomination of currency that they have decided to create.

You might be interested in Hayek's 1974 paper on the subject [1]. It's an excellent read in which he briefly outlines the evolution of money, outlines how central banking practices such as inflation targeting can be dangerous, and makes the argument for decentralized money - akin to Mundell's "currency areas" [2], although he never uses the term.

The ultimate aim in decentralizing currency is the "control of value by competition" so that central banks would be unable to harm their representatives and constituents through poor monetary policy, as Hayek outlines in section 9 of the paper. This would also help curb the "beggar thy neighbor" QE "attacks" we currently observe from major US, European, Chinese, and Japanese central banks.

He notes the same point about employment that you make, with which I agree: My impression is that economists have become somewhat over-ambitious concerning the degree of stability that is either achievable or even desirable under any conceivable economic order, and that they have unfortunately encouraged political demands concerning the certainty of employment at a hoped for wage which in the long run no government can satisfy.

The problem is that decentralization simply transfers the power of the mint from central banks, who are generally supposed to be "public" entities that act in the best interests of the overall nation, to a natural oligopoly of private institutions that will still need government oversight, and who will have short-sighted incentives that are generally aligned against the best interests of the nation as a whole.

Not to mention that this oligopoly of new, money-issuing private banks will still need government regulation and oversight to function together smoothly and provide some basic level of welfare to the low-wage, low-skill, menial laborers that will still be required to pick the food and work the registers in this capitalism, free-market skewed society.

Hayek uses a shaky argument here: The real danger is thus that, while today the people submissively put up with almost any abuse of the money prerogative by government, as soon as it will be possible to say that money is issued by 'rich financial institutions', the complaint about their abuse of the alleged monopoly will become incessant. To wring from the money power their alleged privilege will become the constant demand of demagogues. I trust the banks would be wise enough not to desire even a distant approach to a monopoly position, but to limit the volume of their business may become one of their most delicate problems.

He argues that banks will limit their power because they will be wary of the helpless, powerless complaints of the demagogues? That is the position we find ourselves in today, with many people upset and complaining about the power of the TBTF banks and corporate entities in the US, but with vocal demagogues unable to do anything about it but complain on internet forums. Banks will take as much power as they can get as it is the nature of the private corporation to achieve a monopoly at all costs, especially when dealing with a product like printing money that has huge barriers to entry and massive network effects that will inevitably lead to an oligopoly (think Visa, Chase, Mastercard in the credit market).

I don't know what the best way forward is, but I do not believe it to be increased privatization and more power for the corporation over the individual and the society.

[1] https://mises.org/library/denationalisation-money-argument-r...

[2] https://www.aeaweb.org/aer/top20/51.4.657-665.pdf