Thanks for the lengthy reply! I don’t think I quite follow your first point. However, by listing several companies that took multiple years to become profitable, you illustrate that our current system is equipped to support endeavors that are not immediately profitable.

Take a second read of Gessell's parable and try to put aside the availability bias that we all currently pay interest. Why is it obvious that someone would demand payment for use of a backhoe?

While I read and enjoyed Gessell’s parable, there are some special conditions in the parable that make it not particularly applicable to many real-world scenarios, including my backhoe scenario. The stranger planned to borrow buckskin clothing, seeds, etc., from RC and pay them back in kind with zero or negative interest. These were things that RC had no immediate use for, and that would deteriorate if not used (like money under hypercaptalism). So (and this is the point, I think) the stranger was doing RC a service by borrowing these things, using them, and paying back later in kind with new products that had not suffered deterioration. However, in the case of my backhoe example, a plumber needing to borrow a backhoe would probably borrow it from one of two sources:

1. A tradesperson who owned a backhoe for his/her own use, and rented it out when idle as a secondary revenue stream, or
2. A business that buys equipment specifically to rent out at a profit

In the case of #2, clearly the business would not purchase a backhoe unless it expected to be able to rent it out profitably. In the case of #1, the tradesperson who bought the backhoe uses it him/herself, so it is not in danger of getting rusty or falling into disrepair due to lack of use. So, even in case 1, there is no advantage to the tradesperson to lend out the backhoe unless rent is charged. And in both cases, there is effort and risk involved in loaning me the backhoe – risk that I might damage it or not return it, and effort in running a credit/background check on me prior to lending me the backhoe, taking and verifying a credit card or other collateral to (partially) mitigate the risk of my absconding with the backhoe, inspecting the backhoe upon return, etc. So, in both cases, there will be no incentive to lend the backhoe (and plenty of incentive not to) unless sufficient rent is received to make the exchange profitable to the backhoe owner (break-even is not sufficient). And yet in both cases, the backhoe owner is providing an economically useful function (as anyone who has ever had a one-time need for a backhoe can attest).

But if it is sitting idle in a work yard rusting, all you want back when you loan it out it your resource in the same condition you lent it in. This may have the cost of maintenance, oil, grease, etc.

It is unlikely that anyone who has no need for a backhoe and did not expect to be able to rent it at a profit would own a backhoe. Therefore it is unlikely that anyone will be willing to loan one just to keep it maintained and in good working order.

In a perfect market this is all you would be able to get for your backhoe and you'd be glad to get it.

A perfectly efficient market is an abstraction; something that we can approach but never reach. Nor would we necessarily want to reach it.

The use of money only demands interest because it doesn't have a carrying cost. The banker doesn't need to part with it because $1 dollar will still be $1 tomorrow.

Actually, in our current economic system, money does have a carrying cost – inflation. $1 today is worth less than $1 tomorrow when you adjust for inflation. In fact, hypercapitalism has several characteristics of an economy with high or hyperinflation, e.g. high velocity of money, decaying value of money, strong incentives for consumers to spend money quickly, etc. It seems to me that hypercapitalism would have many of the same disadvantages as high or hyperinflation; I imagine that no one who had lived in Weimar Germany or in Zimbabwe in 2008 would be eager to “build in” decay into currency unless it was a very modest decay.

If money is so available, maybe the issue is that people don't know how to ask for the money because they didn't have the money to pay for the education where they teach you how to ask.

I am not sure that there is an issue; what evidence do we have that there are a lot of under-served qualified borrowers? And, in addition to loans, our economy has other avenues for obtaining funding, e.g. venture capital, stock issues, crowdfunding, etc.

It seems to me that our current system (or at least our pre 2008 system) has a slight currency decay (inflation), disincentives to holding money idle (inflation and lost opportunity costs) and incentives to make it available to others who may need it for productive purposes (positive interest above the inflation rate). So, aside from phasing out central bank “easy money” and stimulus policies, I am not sure that our system really needs to be fixed.