Verbose prose aside ^^^ .. you need to justify your assumptions, Peter Surda has skewered the whole argument with less than a sentence.
Peter Surda:
the assumption that money is the only liquid asset.
Fix this and your other worldly reasoning might be worthwhile or else you are just blowing a whole lot of hot air in forum where people could care less.
I don't think that argument is relevant. Surda is basically saying that "yes, this money is horrible at circulating but you can circulate other things instead of money so this money should not be expected to circulate well."
That's like if I walked into a room and saw somebody driving a tiny finishing tack with a sledge hammer and offered them a small finishing tack hammer and they told me "the sledge hammer doesn't drive finishing tacks well but there are other things that do it well so I'm going to keep using the sledge hammer!" and went back to using the sledge hammer to drive the tiny finishing tack.