To you, demand for money may be increasing because you value highly those goods which are being offered in increasing quantity (or quality) against money. I may see no value what-so-ever for those particular goods and see demand for money in entirely different terms, ie. relative to those other goods which I desire most urgently.
Of course. Yet it is valid to talk of an aggregate demand. It may not be strictly measurable, but it exists, and we can talk about it increasing or decreasing in broad strokes. The discussion was about if demand for money - not relative to other commodities, but qua money for the purpose it serves - increases, for whatever reason, by any measure, what are the implications of a permanently fixed supply.
I'm not sure what you mean by increased productivity of the commodity used for currency. My entire post was attempting to address your circular argument that expected "price deflation" would result in a dearth of investments. In fact, expectation of price decreases ("deflation") simply create valuable signals in the economy that those particular goods in question (or even all goods if that was the case) are no longer desired as urgently and that further investment would be wasteful.
Again, that was not what I was talking about. I said that if the money supply does not increase relative to the demand, if no more can be produced, that money itself will become more expensive. Is that untrue?
The interest rate (+storage cost) on any good, including money, will never be less than zero. If it ever was, there would be an obvious arbitrage opportunity to borrow the good, store it, and pay it back at the lower future value and keep the difference as profit.
Correct. That is why I used that outcome as an example of a dysfunctional outcome of the ridiculous concept of a permanently fixed money supply. I said that interest rates would never go below zero, yet a strong enough and persistent enough expected deflation - meaning future money is more expensive than present money - would imply negative interest rates. The obvious contradiction was used to support my point that the market would not tolerate such conditions - it would seek to increase the money supply. If that was not possible - due to the aforementioned ridiculous assumption of a fixed money supply - lending would cease.
It's a mistake to expect so-called real (normalized) interest rates to tend to zero when there is so-called economic "growth". Interest rates normalized to some price index must necessarily be higher than the expected decline in that index.
Correct again. I'm not sure why you think that is a rebuttal to anything I said.
Money is likely to have one of the lowest interest rates of all commodities, low opportunity cost for holding it being a desirable feature. It is therefore said that interest rate on money tends to zero as time preferences drop. It will never reach zero as long as there is any opportunity to employ capital productively. However, the interest rate on money will always get bid sufficiently above zero to finance all productive investments in need of financing.
Unless the real cost of borrowing becomes so high that business or individuals cannot recoup their financing costs. Again, a dysfunctional condition that the market would desperately seek to correct - unless it can't because by some magical reality distortion field (or coercion) the supply is capped.
The ability to increase the supply of money is most definitely not beneficial. One of the most important qualities of gold as money is precisely the inability to increase it's supply. As a money, it is not perfect in this respect, but there are few other known commodities which exceed gold in their difficulty in being inflated (except for maybe platinum group metals) and that also share the other desirable aspects: durability, portability, divisibility, etc.
See, here, where do you get that? Of course gold allows for an increase in the money supply. Ever heard of mining? It still goes on, you know. They haven't found and extracted all the gold in the earth's crust, unless there was some big news I missed.
I could just repeat what I said about the impossibility, and even if somehow possible, the economic havoc, of a permanently fixed supply. The only thing I can think of to make sense of this is that you are arguing against an increase of the supply by fiat. Of course I am not advocating that, never have. Either I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say, or you are completely out of touch with basic, readily apparent reality. I doubt it's the latter.
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away,
the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care
that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need
millions of them.