Dear Ellen,
I'll stay with the old theory of money and submit that the problems we are facing today is because of the private/public central banking system which allows for heavy controls of the money supply, lending and interest rates through a monopoly that allows for to much power in the hands of to few.

You are suggesting that, how you count the money and the contract for the transaction is more important than how you value the commodity you are using as a medium of exchange. In your first example you use wheat and use cookies for the state bank example. Obviously the contracts are important but you still have to have a comodity that people place a value on. People are not willing to lend money without sufficient collateral, as historically, repayment of the loan is diminished when there is no skin in the game. Also, using one State Bank that is flush with cash from recent oil discoveries, as an example of a viable system is I beleive misleading. Slavery worked for a long time but it benefited some at the expense of others. You have not spent enought time exploring the potential negative ramifications of such a system. Perhaps we can hire the same regulators that were in charge over at the Securities and Exchange Commission for your social experiment. I prefer a true free market system over the forced experimentation of various politically controled systems that always fail. Think about it, you had to mislead the readers by using somebody elses lie, Mostafa Moini, in this article about what money is. Money has always been either a valued commodity or a receipt of a commodity. Who really wants a piece of paper that represents no intrinsic value or wants stock in a company that is not producing a profit. There must be value and the evidence is that all fiat currencies have eventually reached their intrinsic value, the paper the are printed on which by the way makes a very good wallpaper as it teaches the next generation the "Real" theory of money.