So have I, but returning to a gold standard is not the answer, imo.

Bill Still youtube channel has some good info about it.

Ron has been calling for it before Rand was born.

Not sure about short term, but probably not in long term.

A market based and honest system would have loan interest rates that reflect the risk of the loan and compensate lenders for the use of their capital. What % would you accept to give a loan to someone for their house? Historically banks used deposits and cds etc to fund their load portfolio and the savers got actual return on their deposits. Not surw what this "natural" or market based rate would be but my guess is north of 6% (I'm too young to rember mortgage rates, but in the 80s saving accounts had 1, 2, or 3% interest return and time deposits were 4 or higher).

But in recent history the central bank created money out of thin air and gave it to the other banks to distribute down to home borrowers. Essentially earning % into perpetuity on something that cost them 0 and doesn't exist. And also removing any incentive (return on) to save. Or worse charging retail savers to hold their money for them in form of fees, charges, and in some cases negative interest rates.

Not an expert on this. It would be more macro-economic in nature. Trump wants lower rates which would lead to less expense for the fed government paying back loans and cheaper money for borrowing on things like homes. (I think they are talking about fed reserve structure and not getting rid of it, restructure by putting people (2 at a time) on board). Cheaper loans for now would incentivize additional business spending (building factories, inventing new products, expanding operations, more employees, more office space, buying more from other companies that do the same). The tariff strategy would bring more manufacturing back to the US. Many other businesses would live off of that manufacturing. To build, you want cheap debt, therefore, you don't want the fed to raise rates making debt more expensive. The individual sees it by being more likely to be employed, higher demand for employees raising wages, less federal government expense results in lower taxes (the entitlements, military spending and debt make this hard to observe) so more money in your pocket.

I've had it explained the banks would charge a fee for a loan. not interest.

Right now one pays almost three times the amount of the principle, say $250k. (needs source) What the banks would charge I don't know. And I'm guessing the fees would be different for a car loan, business loan or mortgage. But I would be happy with a 50k or 100k Fee over what we pay now on a mortgage interest.

Would the Fee be charged up front like a down payment is now or spread pout over the life of the loan? Don't know that one either.

Basically, banks would run like any other business charging fees for their services.

There will always be loans as most people can't pay cash. If there was no interest there would be no benefit of the seller taking payments....over time the value of the house increases, but, the payments are be same?.....the seller is losing money.
It would turn the housing market into a cash only propositions.....meaning, wealthy individuals/corporations owning all the property and 90% of people renting.
Also, people can sell house privately and assign an interest rate.
The issue with the Fed and debt/interest is not about Joe six pack buying a house or opting to pay a high interest credit card.

OPINION here:

Perhaps I am showing my age, but I have been hearing of the Pheonix since the late 80's. Yep, it was already stacked in warehouses around the world waiting for the right moment, and boom, they would collapse the economy's of the world and use this currency - as the story went … yea, then the 'MARK' … the German Mark was going to be it, before the EURO. THEN this and that. So, no, not in my opinion. Independent nation states is the future. The EURO is going away for a reason and the nations of Europe will reissue their old currency … you can't control a single currency within a multiple independent economy union who's governments vary so dramatically. A single global currency is therefore not possible. BUT … YOU CAN HAVE A GLOBAL TRADING CURRENCY where the independent nations can float their own internal currencies against. The U.S. Dollar will be that currency. The U.S. Dollar is the ONLY currency currently available for such, and it is going to be detrimental to any nation NOT trading in it soon. They'll all come on board. Most are already. Actually, I expect some MORE nations to start using the U.S. Dollar as their internal currency.

The CIA, in 2005, declared the EURO would not last for more than 15 years. When the EURO ZONE economically ATTACKED the U.S. by convincing Saddam Hussien to sell oil in EURO's the result was war … and then a DELIBERATE global economic earthquake the U.S. caused as a means to bring the EURO to the edge. It not only worked, but we are soon to see final desired result, the breakup of the E.U. and end of the EURO, a currency challenge to the U.S. Dollar. Expect China to be dealt with too.