KRUGMAN ON MONEY: SMALL STEPS TOWARDS AURITI

By Daniele Pace

Today I read an article, wrote in fact in 2012, when the Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman, answering the question of “what is the money” placed by Noah Smith, assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University, says that the money today is a social convention, coming in his thinking to Auriti.

As reported by The New York Times, the demand for Smith was "the claim that money is a bubble?", to which Paul Krugman responded clearly "No, it is a social convention".

Paul Krugman certainly does not come to the Auriti's definitions but his approach seems to be very positive because it focuses finally the core of the problem, which is the process of creating value, while not naming it and not achieving to grasp the most intimate aspects.

But we can say that Krugman has succeeded in a reflection that one would never expect from an economist, at the beginning of a process, which we hope would like to continue, and that inevitably leads, once finished, at the Popular Ownership of Money and its Induced Value.

Of course that it does not make Krugman either an Auritiano and an economist nor reliable to put as new idol of the people, but to have the comfort of some reflections by a Nobel Prize will certainly bring the debate for the many citizens who today seek to understand the monetary problem, to points of view not only exclusively economics that they can finally open a window on a superior approach; that juridical approach would bring the society over the economy as it is logical, being this a social phenomenon and therefore with no autonomous behaviour but to settle with conventional laws.

To place the society, with all of its doctrines at its natural place above the economy, it is the first step to take if you want to understand the problem.

Our time instead place the economy above the society, almost in divine position, thus distorting any attempt of evolution of the human race, no more Homo Sapiens but Homo Economicus.

This article of Krugman might be illuminating for those who have never read Auriti, while for the connoisseurs of professor of Teramo is certainly a small step towards the discovery of fields of judgement values by economists.

Krugman writes in fact that: "It’s true that green pieces of paper have no intrinsic value [...] so that my willingness to accept green paper from you is based only on my belief that I can in turn hand that green paper over to someone else. But there’s nothing to prevent that process of monetary circulation from going on forever."

Krugman is just confirming the induced value of Professor Auriti in which the value (purchasing power) comes from the acceptance because it involves the use (value) in exchange for goods.

Continuing Krugman says: "It’s a convention, which works as long as the future is like the past." bringing the monetary speech in a relationship of phases over time to assimilate the right to property as a convention: "Obviously, such conventions can break down — but then so can things like property rights", although this step Krugman is not expressed as clearly as in Auriti, where in fact in the currency, being the Convention and then the legal instrument because legislated, it reside the right of property for the citizens.

But continuing it understands his small insight: "In fact, you could argue that almost every asset in a modern economy owes its value to social convention; green pieces of paper could become worthless, but then so could any paper claim, which is, after all, worth something only because laws say it is", although the economic formation of Krugman in this passage clearly refers to the modern currency and economy leads to a reversal of the role of jurisprudence which should regulate the existing social behaviour and not determine them, especially as he himself defines money as a social convention.

This reversal in fact allowed the ruling elite to impose the private currency of banks instead to rule a social behaviour, the use of the monetary instrument, but also of barter in early trade, which had in the past given the neutrality of the medium of exchange as in the case of Roman bronze coin.

In particular, however, we must point out that Krugman has not caught in the step "green pieces of paper could become worthless", as the "loss of value" (worthless) of money is only in the symbol but not in the value of the monetary instrument. By the law a currency could certainly goes out of circulation and lose value as a symbol representative of a particular currency, as happened in the past for all coins; but the monetary value, as an instrument of social convention, it never loses the value but it changes only the representative symbol. The money not only never lose value, as saying that it would lose the same idea of social convention, but this nature (of social convention) makes it not privatized as is the case today with the modern currency.

Even on the role of taxes Krugman falls in an interpretation wrong. Recalling that he himself defines money as a social convention, we can recall as rightly stated by Davide Storelli in the 9th episode of his column "The value of money", ie that citizens do not accept money to pay taxes, but to exchange goods referred they need.

The taxes also were justified when the currency was in precious metal and rare to find in nature, to recast and redistribute, but not today with the Fiat currency / social convention, unlimited and at no cost.

In further comparison between money and any economic good that creates a bubble (comparison used to find an explanation between money and economic goods) Krugman makes a very important statement: “and once you realize that a social convention is not at all the same thing as a bubble, several related fallacies fall into place”.

That once you realize that the social convention of the currency is not a commodity, many of economic dogmas fall, but also moving the monetary studies from economics to social and legal doctrine.

Finally: “A final thought: the notion that there must be a “fundamental” source for money’s value, although it’s a right-wing trope, bears a strong family resemblance to the Marxist labour theory of value. In each case what people are missing is that value is an emergent property, not an essence: money, and actually everything, has a market value based on the role it plays in our economy — full stop.”

In this sentence we can trace another very important statement, namely that the money has no intrinsic value (essence), but an "emerging property" that comes from a social need for trade. An "emerging property" that is nothing more than the induced value and purchasing power of alternating phases of time, referred as money circulation by Auriti.

Although Krugman stops at this definition, with the separation of Auriti between symbol and value certainly that sentence is an important trace confirming the work of the Italian Professor in the process of value creation as spiritual mental activity.

In conclusion the article Krugman has certainly no innovative aspect than to see a Nobel Prize of orthodox economics to mention a different approach to the problem, the only one able to bring a permanent solution to the suffering of the people.

Switch from commodity money or currency-financial instrument to social convention it seems already a giant leap for orthodox economist and could point the way to many concerned citizens in understanding.

The Bretton Woods Agreement

By Giacinto Auriti

From the period immediately following the last World War, there has been a substantial change on traditional monetary systems, in such a way as to make them particularly relevant for the international jurisprudence, and such as to alter the political and economic balance of markets.

This new system has its origin in the Bretton Woods Agreement on 22^nd July 1944. The work of this conference were based on the two projects presented respectively by Harry White, delegate for the United States, and John Maynard Keynes, British delegate, simultaneously published on 6^th April 1943. Since around these two projects moved the conference and, as we shall see, the arguments and insights contained in them were widely enhancement in later developments of the international monetary system, make it here deserves a quick nod^[1].

The White project - which was based on the realization of the International Monetary Fund - provided a so-called international stabilization fund for an extend not less than $ 5 billion, made up by contributions in gold and currencies of the participating countries.

To this fund could draw the member countries to meet their liquidity monetary needs^[2]. It was provided for this purpose the creation of a monetary unit called Unitas, which would have had, just as reserves, these values.

White in fact considered the Unitas - with a gold content of 137 and 1/7 grains (equal to $ 10 of the time) – as international currency designed in the same way as a kind of representative credit of the values placed at his warranty. In this scheme the gold assumed a position of all relief and also in consideration of the fact that in that time the U.S. was the nation with the largest gold reserves.

According to the White plan, member states were obliged to yield to the Fund in exchange for their respective national currencies, all foreign currencies and gold, which they had come to have in excess compared with the quantity possessed at the time of their adherence to the Fund.

The White plan - which then was broadly welcomed in the creation of the International Monetary Fund - worked as a bank, in which each country appeared as "account holder" using traditional monetary foreign exchange (Gold and the respective currency). The project then was submitted to the limits of growth of the money supply that could not be proportionate to the need of money, ie the increase of economic development, but to the amount of the reserve.

The White project, which gave the appearance of a more reliable because it is based on a gold guarantee, in effect showed no serious expectation that there would be no arbitrary excesses in the issue of currency, as it had to demonstrate the subsequent development of monetary policy.

Also the Keynes project provided for the establishment of a new international monetary unit to be used as reserve: the Bancor, which, however, differed from the American, because did not precede the establishment of a fund of reserves as a condition of its issuance, as the Bancor was conceived purely as an international currency conventional, recognized as part of a currency union between states. For the Keynes plan, the Clearing Union would have to function as an instrument for transformation in Bancor of the equity assets of creditor countries.

In the Keynes plan, therefore, the Bancor came to constitute a new money to be issued - on the assumption of a positive balance - in favour of the country creditor.

The Bancor should have the quality of units of measure of value, but not that to be the object of the value. We know that this is a hypothesis impossible, as it is not conceivable that a unit of measurement without the characteristic corresponding to that of the object to be measured. It would be like designing a kilogram that it had not the quality of the weight or a meter without the quality of the length.

Mr. Palladino captures this aspect of the problem, who defines the amount of Bancor due to each country creditor, such as "theoretical limit of shares that would work as a simple obstacle to the nations debtor and as a basis for action to correct any imbalances and structural pathological"^[3].

Therefore, the Keynes project would not have materialized nothing but the restriction of the same monetary sovereignty of Member countries, namely in considering the Bancor as a parameter value which commensurates the monetary increases of every nation.

The White and Keynes projects, even though they had the apparent affinity, were then structured on two concepts and monetary philosophies completely antithetical.

Both plans contemplated, however, an international institution: respectively a "Fund" for White and a "Clearing International Unit" for Keynes, in order to achieve a common currency and the necessary discipline limitations on the monetary policies of member countries.

The inability to merge into a single project the two solutions, came from the fact that the fundamentals of the two plans moving on two antithetical conceptions of the monetary value: for White the currency had credit worthiness, ie title representative of the values of the reserve, for Keynes the currency had to be purely conventional, that is, free from any form of reserve, while constituting itself reserves for the various central banks.

Both projects realised then the partial purposes, while presenting defects of great importance for different aspects.

The work of the Bretton Woods Conference took place with the participation of 44 nations sent by the President of the United States Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The presidency was assumed by the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury Morgenthau. The Congress came to the unanimous condemnation of the monetary regime before the last World War, highlighting the need for remove the restriction of the foreign exchange and foreign trade, encouraging international cooperation. In closing speech made by Lord Keynes, was emphasized that the conference had to be considered as the beginning a new experience unprecedented.

"We have accomplished here in Bretton Woods something more meaningful than what is stated in the Final". With these words of Keynes is closed after three weeks, namely 22 July 1944, the work of the Conference.

From: The International Regulation of Monetary System

Analysis of the various species of value judgements (Value of money)

By Giacinto Auriti

In order to eliminate the confusion between the various species of value judgements, within which also to include the value of money, we should use the expression of mathematical logic of the following hypothesis.

a) Act useful to the only operative subject

If we denote by t' the first phase (instrumental) of the value, with t" the second phase (hedonistic), with U the utility and with X the operative subject, we can express the useful act with the formula

t' U X

______

t" X

b) Act of liberality

If the act is designed useful as well as its own behalf and also on behalf of another entity Y, the case can be expressed in the formula

t' U X

__________

t" (X + Y)

in which both parties participate in the hedonistic moment of the act in place of X.

c) Contract of corresponding performance

When considering a swap contract between the two entities X and Y, since each is acting on its own behalf and others, the act can be expressed in the contract as sum of the following elements:

t' U X t' U' Y

__________ + ___________ + U"

t "(X + Y) t" (X + Y)

It is in fact carried in the contract an additional utility (U") that emerges from the following consideration. If you speculate two acts of reciprocal donation is obtained ex post an identical result to that of a swap contract. It is obvious that if, the parties instead of establishing two acts of donation, establish a mutual agreement, it means that there is a reason for doing the obvious consideration that everyone is willing to give his performance only and when they are getting the counter-performance by the other party. This prediction of the behaviour of others as a condition of it therefore, the conventional element of the contract. This means that in a contract resides different and superior utility to that of the services and of the consideration. That's why the utility of performance and counter-performance - that are credit values - must be added the further conventional utility U" with the participation of both parties.

Therefore, the swap contract may be expressed in the formula

t' U + U' + U" (X + Y)

______________________

t" (X + Y)

where t' and t" are, respectively, the phase of the instrumental and the hedonistic value; U and U' are respectively the values of performance and counter-performance and U" the usefulness of the contract that - as stated above – is in addition to those traded.

d) Conventional monetary value. The induced value

In the monetary issuing it is established a convention that produces mere utility without creating exchange.

Being here the convention in order to measure the value of goods and having each unit of measure the quality corresponding to that of the object to be measured, such as the meter has the quality of the length measurement because it measures the length, so the currency has the quality of the value because it measures the value.

Thus it was born the monetary value embedded in the symbols of legal tender, without any other cost that the mere activity of mental group (which is precisely the Convention) and its formal manifestation (paper money).

If you then expresses U^m with the conventional monetary value and with A, B, C, D, ... N the individuals who accept the currency, the monetary agreement may be expressed in the following formula:

t' U^m (A + B + C + ... N)

_____________________

t" U^m (A + B + C + ... N)

......................

tⁿ U^m ....... etc..

It occurs in this case, the persistence of the value incorporated in monetary symbol U^m because the unit of measurement is in itself a comodity at repeat-use.

That's why - we repeat - there is a clear distinction between the own conventional value of the currency and the credit value own of the promissory note. The promissory note is extinguished by the payment, the currency continues to circulate after each transaction indefinitely.

Because this value is independent from compulsory inter-subjective relationships, it binds in such way to the symbol in which is embodied to look like even a property of matter: the so-called intrinsic value of gold or gold paper. That is that the currency despite being a legal case - because an intangible asset recorded of conventional value (currently unduly burdened with debt) – it is the subject of property rights in all jurisdictions.

We can therefore conclude that the element defined in the formula U^m is an induced value that was born in the monetary symbol similarly to what happens in the creation of electricity which arises in the dynamo.

In the dynamo energy source is the magnetic field produced by the electrodes, similarly to what happens in creation of the monetary values caused by a field of conventional relationships, ie by a set of expectation for others' behaviour as a condition of, which binds all citizens. Everyone is in fact willing to accept the currency against commodity because expected to give money against goods.

Since the currency is conventional measure of the value, and then the value of the measure (and each unit of measure is conventionally established), in a symbol born the induced value that is the value of the measure that determines the birth of a new commodity.

As with the dynamo - for induction physical - mechanical energy is transformed into electrical energy, so with the currency - for legal induction - turns the conventional value, a fumus iuris (prima facie^[A]), in the real value of an asset to be property rights: the currency.^[9]

^{Extract from The international regulation of monetary system by Giacinto Auriti}

Demolishing the “neutral” money theory

"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

Characteristics of monetary form and its implications on monetary regimes

From the book: "The international regulation of monetary system" by Giacinto Auriti

Once shown that the currency symbol is nothing else that the manifestation of a formal legal case, it is necessary to highlight some essential characteristics of this "phenomenon". It should first be noted that the formal manifestation differs from the natural manifestation because, while this coincides with the phenomenon and it subsist contextually with it, the formal manifestation does not always coincide with the creative moment of the submitted legal case.

You may have in fact the concurrency between form and legal content, when the normative will is manifested by conclusive behaviour, eg. the implicit contract. When the formal manifestation is instead consolidates into a creative process of the symbol, this can not be contextual to its content. Usually it is that the parties, before they want a particular legal relationship, and then manifest it. It consider the case of composition of negotiation acts that is completed after the parties have agreed the object. Here you have a chronological sequence between the acceptance of the contract and its formal manifestation. For the most the juridical experience put us in front of the cases in which the formal event is consecutive to the activity volitional creator of the rule.

In the monetary manifestation it occurs, instead, a reverse of chronological order between the creative moment of the legal case and the creative moment of its formal manifestation (monetary symbol). In fact it occurs in practice that the central bank, by printing monetary symbols, prepares the legal form which has then its content of conventional value at the time when the first borrower, accepting as money the symbol, he gives the corresponding value. Who in fact cause the value of money is not who print or issue, but who accepts it as a means of payment, that is, the community of citizens. The first borrower of money, under the thumb of conditioned reflex to consider the formal manifestation successive to the creation of its legal content, has considered the currency already existing as asset in the hands of the body of issue, while they had nothing else that the mere symbols still empty of their monetary value.

This is explained as well as initial equivocation, that you have not connected the money to the genus of the legal case, both derived a macroscopic reversal of legal and accounting truth at the time of issue the money.

The first borrower of money, not realizing that it was himself, as a member of the community, to create the conventional monetary value by the mere fact of accepting the money, was induced to accept it, not free as would have been right, but with the counter-part of debt.

"It is happened in this way that central banks have expropriated and indebted the national communities because they have issued by lending money, and lend money is a prerogative of the owner. In other words, the first the borrower of money has considered the monetary value as existing in the hands of those who controlled the production of symbols, setting the stage for a paradoxical parasitism operated by central banks to the detriment of national communities. The currency came into existence as an intangible asset so burdened with debt, so that the legal nature of

this symbol is to build up debt and precarious ownership of money for the bearer, such as precarious is the ownership of the debtor, because he has it until such time as the returns to the creditor. The real dominus (dominant) is only the creditor: the bank.

This situation was mitigated by the nature of things when the symbol was commodity money (gold), because, existing gold in the market, was consolidating in the hands of the bearer of the goods a potential value of a horizontal vision of monetary sovereignty of which also participated the market. When money became the symbol at no cost, it exploded in a vertical structure, an absolute and unlimited hegemony of monetary issuing bodies.

Never before, then, there is the need to prepare a legal regulation on monetary values, after has define the nature, causes and characteristics, as we have said, of an intangible asset as legal case. It should first be noted that the ownership of the money must be declared at the time of issuance, exclusively attributable to the national community, because it is only on this premise that you will be able to determine who should be the owner, who is the creditor or the debtor and it will finally can determine to who should be given that potential value in which consolidates the monetary sovereignty. In the formalization of the symbol the expression of monetary value should not be signed by the Governor of the central bank, as at this day, but by the President of State, which is the only one who can legitimately represent the collective ownership of the currency.

It will then competence of economists to propose on criteria of rigid technical discretion, the amount of currency to be issued in order to comply with the stability of the monetary value, indispensable quality of every unit, but shall, instead, be the exclusive competence of political sovereignty and the legislative function determine of who should be the ownership of the money, and who the creditor and who the debtor. This in order to purify the monetary systems from those fundamentals misunderstandings that have until now allowed some unacceptable forms of arbitrary depletion and parasitism, to the detriment of national communities.

For this, there is the need to establish within the rule of law a "Department of the currency" – in replacement of the central bank - to allow clear transparency with the production and distribution of money among all members of the national community.

Extract from "The international regulation of Monetary System" by Giacinto Auriti

Credit value and monetary value (conventional)

This strategy of market dominance was based on the confusion, therefore, deliberately intended, among two concepts: of credit value and conventional value. While credit value is defined as those relating to the service which is object of loan, for the conventional value, however, it must be considered the value that is caused by the same Convention.

To clarify this difference, it is useful to give an example: if you establish two acts of reciprocal donation between two person, there is ex post an identical result to that of a swap contract. And it is evident that if two people, instead of doing two acts of donation, make a contract, it means that there is a specific incentive so that in contract performance corresponding utility resides a different and superior to that of the service and the counter-service. This value is caused by the conventional prediction of the others' behaviour as condition of their own. This is what happens to the currency, the value of which is determined by the simple fact that everyone is willing to give money against goods in anticipation of being able to give itself currency against commodity. The monetary values explode thus, through a pure mental activity of the components of the national communities that realize, with the Monetary Agreement, the value of the currency.

In passing off the form of credit title as conventional value, the banking system achieved the purpose of appropriate the conventional values produced by the community. In fact, it took advantage of the fact that the issuance of debt securities is the prerogative of the debtor, appearing as debtor in the deed statement, and arrogating to itself the right to issue the title, it acquired the ownership of the money. With this system, the bank could turn an apparent debt in a substantial enrichment. For example, the tenor of the note document "A thousand lire payable to bearer" would mean that only theoretically, performing this document to the bank, it should be required to pay the equivalent commodity gold. And since, by law, the Bank does not can convert into gold the monetary titles (notes), it is authorized to issue this bill, which is a false a bill of exchange, because it is without expiration term and responsability, and then with the "guarantee" to not pay it.

The bank thus realizes a profit equal to the difference between nominal value and cost of printing currency, turns its debt apparent in a substantial enrichment by means of a macroscopic accounting reversal of which no one is shocked because too obvious, and that allows the banking system to take control of a value that has nothing to do with credit.

While the credit is extinguished by the payment, the money continues to circulate after each transaction indefinitely. And being, moreover, the currency the means to meet and settle the credit, it can not have the same value of credit, even if the credit is sometimes used as a substitute for currency (for example, the bill of exchange used as a means of payment). This is proof that money, even if circulating usually under the guise of credit instrument, incorporates a purely conventional value. The category of Conventional values is still almost completely ignored by economists and by the legal system, so much so that there is still not a valid legal system on the monetary nature. According to traditional theories, when it talks on value, mostly mistakenly refers to the value for costs, such as incorporation of the production cost.

It is historically proven that whenever it is usual to consider a commodity as currency symbol, its value is increased significantly. Because in fact the value of an asset is proportional to its usefulness when a specific goods, in addition to meeting the need for which is naturally destined to be the measure that also satisfies the value for the exchange, obviously increases in value because it increases utility. This happened for example at the beginning the American colonial history in the southern states for tobacco and rice, where the goods were considered as money.

The currency has value for the simple fact that it is the unit of measure of the value of the goods. Each unit has, in fact, the quality corresponding to what must be measured. As the meter has the quality of the length because it measures the length, as the kilogram has the quality of weight because the is the weight measurement, so the currency has the quality of the value because it measures the value. And the value of the currency is conventional, moreover, because each unit is conventionally established.

To be aware of this truth is to discover the enormous potential value of our mental activity of group, so much so that the monetary value exists even when the monetary symbol is zero cost and lacking any form of reserve, as at this day for the dollar and Special Drawing Rights.

That the currency had the dual distinction of being the unit of measure of the value of the goods and then to incorporate the value of the same unit of measurement, it was clearly established by Ezra Pound^[10]: "Money is not an instrument simple as a spade, contains two elements: that of which measures the prices in the market and the one that gives the power to buy the goods."

It follows that the monetary function is cause of a duplication of values and doubles at least the wealth of nations that adopt it, because the sum of the units (currency) expresses an amount of value corresponding to that of all the measured or measurable in real assets in the value. It is time that the public becomes realize that those who create the value of money is not who print or issues it, but those who accept it as a means of payment, that is, the community of citizens. The lack of this awareness, causes that who appropriates the monetary value are not the people, but the international banking system, by virtue of the cultural monopoly of the category of conventional values.

Extract from "The internation regulation of monetary system by Giacinto Auriti