Banks are private institutions (even though need tax money to be saved when they screw up, they are socialists when it is in their advantage). The newly printed money is indeed "credit", over which interest is always paid... to the rich private institutions with dibs on printed money.

> The newly printed money is indeed "credit", over which interest is always paid... to the rich private institutions with dibs on printed money.

The newly printed money is credit to the private institutions, who must repay the printed money with interest. You're not getting a system less skewed towards the rich by replacing that liability with one towards high net worth individuals or hedge funds instead...

Why is the money not equally distributed over all people? Or indeed, that would be the same as allowing for deflation (but maybe then we'd keep the money worth the same in terms of big macs which has benefits), as is happening with Bitcoin. Saving makes sense then, as with Bitcoin. Maybe then we don't need crippling mortgages anymore, because then banks are not the only entities that can afford houses by "Whoop" signing a 500k debt into existence, which is subsequently used to enslave us for ~30 years as we pay interest (because the banks don't want to feel the inflation) on an amount that is just, just withing reach of saving for 30+ years on an average salary, 2 if you're just starting and missed on the latest insane price increase driven by the lack of newly build houses and an unsustainably low interest.

If you want to ask why money isn't 'distributed equally across all people', Bitcoin isn't your answer and nor is a currency actually designed with a deflationary or zero inflation mechanics. If you want to distribute money across all people, you design a system which actually gives everybody money, but funnily enough, Bitcoin was designed so Bitcoins were distributed to those rich enough to participate in mining activity instead...

Saving makes sense in a deflationary environment, its just that "saving" involves letting other people do productive things with the money with rather than starving them of funds in the hope they will be sufficiently desperate for cash in future to be willing to exchange more stuff for it. A deflationary environment sets a floor on how much the 1% control, not a ceiling, disincentivises them from creating jobs (lots of risk, no aggregate money returns to be earned) and makes it risk free for them to starve the economy of resources instead.

And in a world with no "crippling mortgages", you still need somewhere to live before you can save 500k. Which means instead of borrowing and repaying and ending up with a house, you spend roughly that portion of your income on rent instead...