I read it carefully, and I understand. I simply disagree. Why, for example, do you think there are exchanges for essentially every pair of government currencies?

Maybe we're talking about different things. My general point (which maybe you don't care about) is along these lines: A regular currency operates usually exclusively in one area, and in that area can be used for all spending. Strictly speaking, it could still run if currency exchanges suddenly vanished (and before informal replacements took over). A currency is after all not simply a commodity, it is the legally acceptable form of payment for all debts in that area (and must be accepted). Bitcoin, on the other hand, is not required to be accepted anywhere. In addition, most people value Bitcoin because it's worth a lot of US dollars. So its value seems more connected to the existence of exchanges than normal currencies, which at least can operate inside their own countries without any currency exchanges. (It's not quite as neat as that but the point is in the comparison to Bitcoin.) The further sensitivity to exchanges is because, since you are payed in other currencies, you are constantly evaluating Bitcoin's worth in terms of those currencies. (And being payed is a way to get currency without a currency exchange.)

For global exchange of value which is what I thought Bitcoin was supposed to do all by itself.