"If
money was neutral, as many economists would have us believe, we
should release all the thieves of money because they would not have
stolen no value"
This
repeated the Professor. Auriti when in the various debates and
economic texts came across the concept of neutral value of money.
Therefore, by logical-legal deduction, according to this definition
of neutrality of money, a neutral value does not involve any
substantial difference and therefore it would be indifferent to have
money in your pocket or not, both because it is a paid job or you
have it as proceeds of theft.
The
unfounded on the neutrality of money manifests itself under the
logical point of view, legal and economic. From the logical point of
view it is clear that it is very important to have money in your
pocket or not have it.
From
the legal point of view the currency is a collective good as created
by social convention to measure and incorporate the values, good with
financial content and repeat-use and owned by the bearer.
Not
surprisingly, the money is considered as "movable property"
and the goods have of course an owner as they are objects of law
movable property. Otherwise you could not accuse the thieves for
theft. In the case of money, however, central banks have reached such
a degree of professionalism appropriating other people's resources,
by having consolidated in themselves, and in governments, the belief
that they have the right to do so, through a real form of legalized
theft, blatantly unconstitutional.
The
obstacle on which all economists stopped it is based on the original
error to have not define the currency as legal case and the same law
as an instrument, or right itself, and that is, as an expression of
their own value, different from that of the asset covered by the law.
On this initial misunderstanding, it is purported to justify the
monetary value on the basis of the gold reserve and confusing
impersonating under the guise of credit value, the induced value, ie
configuring the currency, not as a measure of value, but as the title
of credit representative of the reserve. Money is not credit but the
object of credit.
Besides,
if it were true that the reserve is used to give to currency the
purchasing power, after the abolition of the Bretton Woods Agreement,
and with the abolition of the gold reserve, the dollar would have
totally lost its value: while not only it did not lose value, but it
has replaced gold as monetary base in the world monetary system.
From
the economic point of view the statement that the money has a value
neutral is removed with irrefutable data that provides us with
Pierluigi Paoletti, a member of the Scientific Committee of the
School of Legal Studies and Money "Giacinto Auriti" and
director of CENTROFONDI
Many
economists say / write that the role of issuer of currency is
neutral.
Just a
chart to demolish their claims. Look carefully at the graph of %
variation year-on-year of industrial output and money supply (M1) in
America being compared:
If you
notice the money supply (blue line) conditions anticipating the trend
in industrial production following the increase or decrease in the
money supply. In practice, the economic cycles are nothing else the
dynamics induced by the opening / closing of the "tap" on
money. The circle shows that industrial production is turning down
after several months that the money supply decreases constantly.
Who
then holds the power to issue currency determines the performance of
the economy, beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecutor could say.
The
other dynamic that is never considered it is the dynamics of the debt
in the long run that has an exponential trend in 50/60 years and
requires a system reset as a beautiful and powerful devastating war
or a crisis to bring debt under normal conditions,
The
exponential increase of the debt began in the late '70s to coincide
with the season of the great privatizations and as this grew the
economy was turned financial moving from an economy of production to
that financial, because it allowed stratospheric gains obviously
inversely proportional to those of the majority of the population
that was being strangled by debt. Meanwhile, the debt also affects
the economic growth that, to not being swept away, it needtry in vain
to keep pace consuming huge quantities of natural resources.
At this
point, those who say that money is a neutral element and that debt is
a wealth, probably he misunderstood something although it is in good
faith (which is not possible for economists).
Just as
you see a single wise action on the "tap" Oxygen (M1) and
the virus debt relating to the issue currency and the game of abuse
are done without much effort. Do you think that with the divorce
between the Treasury and the Bank of Italy in 1982 the Italian public
debt went from 60% to 120% in 1992, has done that?. To think and say
that the economy is a free market it is impossible if you put
together the public and irrefutable data...… it is just that almost
never does!
From: giacintoauriti.eu
No comments:
Post a Comment