But lenders take the liquidity premium without providing any service to society.
The money holder has the power to enable commerce...
So, which is it? Money holders/lenders don't provide any service, or money holders/lenders enable commerce?
Money provides the service, lenders take the profit. Also they enable other "capitalists" to take it too.
Since money impedes the yield of other capitals to drop below the liquidity premium you don't have to be a lender to enjoy the privilege of profit without contributing.
You are also apparently focusing in on the "liquidity premium" as the main evil of interest. Is liquidity, aka easy access to capital, a useless/worthless service?
I focus on it because I don't want to attack the risk premium.
No, liquidity is so important that influences all the economy and capital accumulation.
The problem is that we can't reach the point where nobody borrows because there's no capital to invest in. Before reaching that point we reach the point where nobody lends, because holders can make more profit from their liquidity than what they could get from borrowers.
How can you make a profit on liquidity without lending???
Very good question.
The easy answer (just like the borrowers would do it) doesn't apply here, because we're supposing that we're in a recession environment in which no borrower can make any investment that yields more than the liquidity premium in any sector of the economy. A very extreme scenario, by the way, I bet impossible within capitalism.
That's what merchants do. They make profit on liquidity through the wares. If they're borrowers, they pay it to their lender.
Probably it would be simpler if you quote the sentences that you consider false in
Gesell's book directly.
That chapter is not long and talks precisely about what we're talking here right now.