The current system puts money into wealthy people's bank accounts so they can invest it and make a profit to repay the loan. Profits come by selling something from the investment and taking money from the buyer; hence, money from the buyer repays the loan. Think of a house. Wealthy people can get a loan to buy a home they rent to a poor person whose rent pays the loan back.

The proposed system puts money into a community account so a community can buy houses that individuals will buy according to how much rent they pay. The agreement is that the house title must stay in the community, and the money must remain with the houses the community buys and builds. It removes the cost of debt. Rent is paid, but it is paid to the community, not to a wealthy person.

Who gets the houses is important and has to be fair and transparent, but that is why we have democracies, so it is best decided by agreement. Read Elinor Ostrum's work on how societies did it before money came on the scene.

The current system guarantees that wealth is distributed as a Zipf distribution. The proposed system means that wealth will be distributed as a Poisson distribution. Today, in Australia, 80% of new wealth goes to the richest 1%. Most of the wealth they get is called "capital gains," which is shorthand for someone else paying for it.

The mutual credit you propose is good, but everyone must have access to credit for it to work. You have to figure out how to distribute credit. There is always an allocation problem. Solving it by allocating according to wealth is NOT a fair, democratic, or economically sensible.

Obscene wealth inequalities arise when wealthy people are given an economic advantage, which they take through capital gains rather than profits.