Date: Wed., 29 May 1996
Ownership of money and the induction of value to money.
Lack of uniform rules in statutory and constitutional systems.
Additional proposals for the Treaty of Maastricht.
By Prof. Giacinto Auriti
UNIVERSITĄ DI TERAMO
FACOLTĄ DI GIURISPRUDENZA
1) Preliminary considerations
What is most surprising, not only for a jurist, but, more so, for the ordinary
reader of legislative texts, is to discover that there are no considerations
about who is the owner of the money, at the act of issue, to be found in any
legal ordinance. The Treaty of Maastricht is no exception to this rule.
If we do not establish, who is the owner of money, with respect to the
original title of ownership, at the act of issue, we cannot distinguish
between debtor and creditor, which illustrates the gravity of a legislative
deficiency that can no longer be tolerated. This serious deficiency in the
legislative framework surrounding the monetary system has arisen from the
fact that there is no scientific definition of the concept of money, itself,
and, thus, it has not been possible to consider it, as a real good and an
object of the law of ownership.
These are the reasons why money is, now, considered, as an "irrecoverable debt,"
or a spurious bill of exchange; for example "£ 1000 payable at sight to the
bearer. Signed: the Governor of the Bank of Italy".
2) The induced value as a legal value.
For these reasons, it is useful to briefly summarize the new theory of the
monetary "induced value", which has recently been developed in the
University of Teramo (G.Auriti, "Il valore del diritto" and "L'ordinamento
internazionale del sistema monetario" ed. Edigrafitel, Teramo, 1993). In the
light of this theory, it is evident that money is a question of law and, as
such, its production is only limited by the decisions of the sovereign fiscal
authority, entailing no other cost than that of the symbols (which merely
constitute the formal elements of such legal matters). In order to explain
the nature and characteristic aspects of legal induction, we need to consider
some essential premises of a general, theoretical nature: -
a) The law is an instrument, because it is the result of a creative activity
of the human spirit.
-
b) Since an instrument is an object of value, we cannot define the law, if we
do not, first of all, define value.
-
c) Value is a relationship between phases of time. Therefore, I can say, for
example, that a pen has value, because I anticipate writing with it. Value is
a relationship between the moment of anticipation and the anticipated moment.
-
d) In the first phase, value is the judgement of instrumentality, which
concerns the object; in the second phase, it is the moment of satisfaction
which concerns the subject. Therefore, the spiritual reality of the law, in
which its instrumentality resides, is a relationship between phases of time.
Thus for example, credit is the relationship between the "recalled" moment
of establishing the contract and the anticipated moment of its fulfilment.
In this way, we can state that law is a necessary and functional
relationship between phases of time, which constitutes by virtue of its
force of obligation, a "must" or "shall be".
-
e) From these preliminary considerations, it emerges that because it
satisfies a need for legal certainty, the law posesses a value, in itself,
which is separate from that of the item, which is an object of the law.
Therefore, if we consider two mutual actions of donation between two
subjects, we have, retrospectively, the equivalent of an exchange contract.
But, if the two parties establish a contract, instead of two actions of
donation, it means that if either one of them performs his service, there is
a reason for a legal certainty of the other person's service. So, in the
conventional element of the contract, there is a benefit or advantage and,
hence, an autonomous value, which is separate from the value of the mutually,
exchanged services. The difference between "credit value" and "conventional
value" becomes clear at this point: the credit value is measured by the
value of the object of credit, while the conventional value is created by
the convention, itself, and its entity and structure are freely conceived and
made, by the agreement among parties. In this way, a value is created, whose
sole cost is the mental activity of the parties and the material element,
which is necessary for its formal manifestation.
3) Money as a question of law.
Only in the light of these preliminary considerations is it possible to give
a scientific definition of money, filling a conceptual void, which can no
longer be tolerated. Money has value because it measures value. Every unit
of measure is determined by the corresponding quality of what it measures.
If the metre is characterized by the quality of length, because it measures
length, money necessarily has the quality of value, because it measures
value. In this particular instance, conventional activity produces not only
the measure of value, but also the "value of the measure" i.e. what we call
"purchasing power".
In the case of money, we observe a phenomenon which is similar to that of
physical induction.
In an electrical dynamo, mechanical energy produces electrical energy.
Similarily for money, convention causes the induced value in the symbol. In
the case of a dynamo, an increase in the rotational speed of the generating
components causes an increase in the quantity of electric energy. Likewise,
in the case of money, an increase in the velocity of circulation causes an
increase in the induced value, i.e. in the purchasing power.
Money is, therefore, a collective good, because it is created by a social
convention, but it is, also, an item of individual private property, because
with respect the original title of ownership, it is attributed to the bearer
of the symbol by "legal induction".
The obstacle, which has invariably confounded economists, has arisen from the
initial error of not defining money, as a question of law and the law, itself,
as an instrument and a good in itself, that is, an expression of value in
itself, separate from the value of the good, which is an object of the law.
On the basis of this initial misunderstanding, it has been attempted to
explain monetary value, with reference to gold reserves, producing confusion
and, incorrectly, substituting the "credit value" for the "induced value",
i.e. considering money, not as a measure of value and, consequently, the value
of the measure (which it is), but as an instrument of credit, representing
the reserve. Money is not credit, but by legal induction it is a real good,
an asset, and as such can also be an object of credit.
After all, if it were true that the reserve could give money its purchasing
power, then the dollar should have lost its value, completely, after the end
of the Bretton Woods agreement, and the abolition of the golden reserve. But
the dollar has not lost its value, and has, even, taken the place of gold, as
the basic monetary unit of the global, monetary system.
The argument, which tries to justify the monetary value, in terms of the
reserve, is seriously flawed, because it is based on a materialistic concept
of value. Value, as we have explained, above, can never be considered as a
property of the material, but as a temporal relationship, because it always
consists of a forecast or anticipation. If a pen has value, because we
anticipate writing, money, too, has value because we anticipate purchasing.
Usually the value of gold is considered, as a characteristic of the metal and,
consequently, has given rise to the erroneous concept of its "intrinsic
value". But like everything else, gold has value, because it has been agreed
that it shall have it. Since the metal has been traditionally regarded as a
monetary symbol, an induced value has been attributed to it by custom.
Since convention is a legal matter, and every unit of measure is established
by convention, the raw material to create money is the same material used to
define all other legal matters, i.e.: "space and time": in this context, the
spatial dimension is the material, with which the monetary symbol appears and
the temporal dimension is the anticipation of the possibility to purchase.
Consequently, the formal element of the "legal matter", in the case of money,
can be gold, or any other symbol, which involves negligible cost, like paper
and ink. Nussbaum has shown that the value of goods, which represent the
monetary symbol, is irrelevant, (Arthur Nussbaum, Storia del dollaro, Milano,
1957, p.8). Analyzing the monetary history of the American Colonies, he
shows that when goods were accepted as money, two phenomena were observed:
their value appreciated and goods of inferior quality became as valuable as
goods of superior quality. This was observed, for example, in the case of
beaver furs.
Therefore, taking on an induced value, goods, as a monetary symbol, played the
role of a mere, formal element of a legal matter. In order to explain the
validity of this thesis, we may consider that it makes no difference to us,
whether we have got old, or brand-new, banknotes in our pockets. This proves,
also, that gold is also nothing more than a legal matter, and its so-called
"intrinsic value" is really the "induced value".
The definitive proof of this is that if I buy a pound of gold, paying two
hundred thousand lire, I give in exchange for the golden symbol, two pieces
of paper, whose commodity value is a minute fraction of the value of the gold,
which I have purchased.
By defining the value of money as a legal value, it is as if we had made the
discovery of a goldmine, which can be exploited without cost.
"To say that a state cannot pursue its aims because there is no money, is
like saying that an engineer cannot build roads, because there are no
kilometres."
Ezra Pound was right !
4) Credit value and monetary value: distinguishing characteristics
It is now time to clear up the misunderstanding caused by, erroneously,
equating monetary value with credit value. In order to understand the great
difference between money and credit, it is sufficient to consider the
following points: -
a) Credit is extinguished by a payment; money continues to circulate, after
every transaction, because it is an item of continuous utility, like every
unit of measure.
-
b) Credit value is exposed to the risk of non-fulfilment; the monetary value
is real, and certain, because, due to legal induction, money is a real good
and, moreover, an item of continuous utility.
-
c) In the case of credit, the normative precept is required first and is
followed by its manifestation. In the case of money, the formal
manifestation of monetary symbols is first created and these symbols are,
then, given value, during the act of issue. The one, who gives money its value,
is not the one who issues it, but the one who accepts it. In the case of
physical induction, electric energy is generated by the rotation of the
dynamo's components. Similarily, in the case of legal induction, monetary
value is created during the act of issue, that is to say at the dynamic
moment, when it enters circulation among the members of the community, who
give it conventional value, by accepting it. The issue of symbols in the form
of legal tender is an act of "heteronomy"; the acceptance of money, which
conventionally determines the value, is an act of "autonomy". To say that
the value of money is not created, by the one who accepts it, but by the one,
who issues the symbols, is like saying that electrical energy is created, not
by the person, who causes the dynamo to rotate, but by the person who
manufactures it.
The usurocratic hegemony of the banking system is based on this
misunderstanding.
-
d) Credit value is caused by the promise of the debtor, as in the case of a
bill of exchange, where the issuer is the debtor. Monetary value is caused by
the acceptance, of the first person to accept it. Nowadays, money is issued
as if it were a spurious bill of exchange, because the governor of the
central bank, signing, as if he was the debtor, makes the people believe,
incorrectly, that he is the one who creates monetary value.
-
e) The theories, which claim to explain money as an instrument of credit,
representing the available goods on the market, are also incorrect in their
attempts to give money a unilateral purchasing power (in this connection, we
recall Nixon's statement at Camp David on 15 August 1971 which abolished
the dollar's convertibility in gold and revoked the Bretton Woods
agreement). Like every other unit of measure, money has only got utility, if
there are objects to measure. If there were no objects to measure in length,
a metre would be as useless, as money would be, if there were no objects whose
value could be measured. But this does not mean that a unit of measure
represents the measured objects.
The definitive proof of the insufficiency of this thesis is that, while the
bearer of a certificate of credit can ask for the object of credit, by
presenting the document, the bearer of money can only propose the purchase
of goods, to the owner (or accept the owner's proposal), offering money as a
real good and object of exchange. Futhermore, as we have shown above a
"title of credit" is extinguished by the payment, whereas money continues to
circulate, after every transaction, because like every unit of measure, it is
an item of continuous utility.
f) We may conclude that induced value differs from credit value because of
the different legal circumstances. Credit arises from the relationship
(whether negotiable or not) between creditor and debtor, whereas induced
value is caused, exclusively, by the convention which binds the national
community, in acceptance of their money. This, also, explains, why monetary
units are characterized by nationality.
5) The great usury
After proving that money is, simultaneously, a measure of value, and the value
of the measure, it is, unquestionably, true that the monetary mass constitutes
a mirror-like duplicate of the value of real goods, measured, or measurable,
in terms of their value. This duplicate value can have the positive sign of
an asset (and in this case, it doubles the people's wealth), or the negative
sign of a debt (in which case it creates a desperate and agonising situation
because of inevitable insolvency).
When money was made from gold, the bearer was, also, the owner. Since the
advent of "nominal money", he has, without realising it, become a debtor. All
"nominal money" is issued by the banks, in the form of loans. Thus, all money
in circulation is burdened, with debt, to the central banks. Therefore, if
someone wants to pay off a debt of money, with money, it would be the same as
paying a debt, with another debt. IT CANNOT BE DONE. In the long run, he is
forced to pay with his own capital and with the produce of his labour.
With the discovery of induced value as a legal value, it is not only proven
that money must be considered, as the property of the national community, but,
also, that, currently, the central bank, by loaning out, what is in fact due,
imposes a cost of 200% on money, at the act of issue: the initial 100%,
because it expropriates the community of the induced value (only an owner
can lend money), and a further 100% by forcing the national community into
debt, to the same extent.
Furthermore, it is also evident that banks, and other credit institutions,
"create" money, in a surreptitious way. Applying the principle of so-called
credit multiplication, they lend money in an increased proportion, to the
sums, which have been deposited with them. For example, they lend 100% with a
20% monetary liquidity reserve. All this can be done, because a great part of
the lent money is deposited in a bank, again, so that a reserve of 20% is,
usually, sufficient to satisfy a request for money. Hence, it is evident that
a bank can lend money, which it does not have, to an amount of 80% of the
loan. Consequently, this difference of 80% is, in fact, induced value (not
credit value), which should be represented by legal-tender, paper money, not by
instruments of credit. Properly considered, its ownership should be
attributed to the community (not to the banks), who could then deposit it in
a bank, as creditors and not as debtors.
This principle of credit multiplication expropriates the people, and causes
debts, to the extent of the induced value as explained above, thus, it results in
"debt multiplication", which was a consequence, and a corollary, of the scheme
developed by Paterson, in 1694, for the Bank of England, founded with the aim
of making loans, using the "notes of the bank" (i.e. bills of exchange) in
place of money (gold). These bank-notes were "nominal money" and, also,
"debt-money".
As a result of these practices, the people of the world have been
dispossessed of their own money, forced into debt, without receiving anything
in return.
Only in the light of the preceding considerations does it become possible to
formulate a correct interpretation of the modern age.
6) Organic society and instrumental subjectivities
The advent of the constitutional state was not merely a simple, political
choice, but also an historical one. The proliferation of "legal phantoms"
(so-called "instrumental subjectivities") has taken the place of the old,
catholic monarchies of the Old Europe, the last descendants of the Holy
Roman Empire. Thus, the possibility to plan and change ethical parameters
has also been created.
The concept of society was considered, as a concept without a human content,
i.e. an "instrument", so that making use of it, and not "serving it", was the
only possibility. We can only make use of an instrument: it is ridiculous to
serve an instrument. In this way, a concept of ethics, driven by economic
considerations, developed. The principle, "that which is right (just) is
advantageous", was replaced by the new principle, "that which is
advantageous is right".
The concept of a society, which exploits the instrumental subjectivities, has
taken the place of a society, based on natural law, i.e. people united by an
organic relationship. In this way, national communities have become the
"exploited society" and humanity has entered an age of decadence.
"Debt-money" is the instrument, which the "exploiters" have used, in order to
become the real puppet-masters of history.
With this new monetary system, the central bank can, at any time, lay claim to
as much money, as it requires in "repayment", because all money has been
issued by the bank, in the form of of loans. Since the bank exercises control
over the political authority, or at least the Treasury and ,hence, budgetary
and fiscal matters, it can, at any time, retire all the money it desires from
the market, by means of fiscal levies (taxation) or interest rates.
The people have really and truly become cows to be milked. This was the aim
of the French Revolution, which was, strategically, planned by the Bank of
England. By substituing debt-money (the bank-note), for asset-money (money as
property, i.e. gold), the system of the central banks has taken possession
of, almost, double the circulating money of all the world, because it has
disposessed and indebted the people, without giving anything in return.
By manipulating the conditioned reflex, of habitually giving an equivalent to
get money, the central banks have forced all the people, of the world, to
accept, at the moment of issue, monetary symbols of negligible cost, as the
equivalent of a debt. But this is an unfair exchange, because the debt is not
proportionate to the cost of the symbols (as it should have been), but rather
to the induced value of the money (which is not produced by the bank of
issue, but by social convention).
It is as if someone lending empty fish-baskets to fishermen, thereby, forced
them into debt, not only for fish-baskets, but also for fish.
7) Legal nature of the issue and circulation of money.
In this way, the greatest fraud of all time has happened, because the central
banks have deliberately confused the concept of "issue", with the concept of
"transfer". We recall in this relation to this point, the written replies of
the Under-Secretaries of the Italian Treasury, Pace and Vegas, to the
questions of the Chamber,(Session of 17 March 1995) and the Senate, (Written
Reply n.38) , respectively, which define. in writing. the issue, as the "creation
of money and its introduction into circulation, by transfer to other subjects".
"Transfer" and "issue" are separate concepts, distinguished by the fact that
during the former, the object which is transferred, by the transferor, is the
same object, as that which is received by the creditor. In the case of
"monetary issue", the object issued by the central bank is the symbol, i.e.
a mere formal element, which is also the basis for the legal matter of
money, which is completely different from the one, which is in the hands of
the acceptor. In this context, the symbol becomes money, by virtue of its
acceptance.
The so-called "desert-island syndrome" is the definitive proof, which
demonstrates that the value of money is not created by the bank, but by the
community: if a bank governor begins to issue money on a desert island, the
money will have no value, because there is no community. Therefore, we may
conclude that the value of money is created, not by the one who issues the
symbols, but by the one who accepts them.
The issue of symbols in the form of legal tender is an act of heteronomy.
The acceptance of money, which creates conventional value, is an act of
autonomy. A serious inequity, in the legal system of monetary value, has been
created, by a confusion between the first and the second phase. It has been,
incorrectly, assumed that monetary value, with respect to the original title
of ownership, could be created by the issuer (of symbols) and not, as is
really the case, by those who accept them as money.
Monetary value arises from a forecast about the behaviour of other people.
Everybody accepts money in exchange for goods, because he expects to be
able to give money, in order to receive goods. Every consideration about
value is based on a forecast, which anticipates the future moment of
satisfaction. This is the reason why, in anticipation of the possibility of
purchasing, the initial bearer of the symbols creates a "purchasing power".
If a knife posesses value, because I forsee cutting, money similarily
posesses value, because I forsee making purchases.
In this way, a new value is created, which acquires objective form in another
good, i.e. money. Because of this, the subjective moment of time, which is
the mere anticipation of purchasing, is replaced by an objective moment,
which is a concrete and real purchasing power (a legal security to purchase
with money). This is the legal instrumentality, which proves that money, even
if it is a good, based on a pure legal value, is a real item and an object of
property.
Monetary value is created through legal induction, by the person who accepts
it, and not by the person who issues it.
Procceding from a definition of "issue", as the "creation and transfer" of
money, we will tend to, erroneously, consider the moment of the symbol's
creation, as being coincident with the creative moment of monetary value. The
bank is, thus, granted the competence to create induced value, which by its
very nature, (as the desert island example proves) can be, only, created by
social convention, i.e. by a national community.
If we assume the birth of this new value, at the moment of issue, we
incorrectly attribute the ownership of the money, in respect of the original
title, to the bank, and not the community (as it really the case). By means of
this pretext, the bank, speciously, justifies treating the acquisition of the
derivative title of monetary ownership by the community, as the object of a
loan. Therefore, the bank issues money, with an enormous reversal of
accounting principles, because it lends out, what is in fact due.
This is the natural consequence of two fundamental errors, carefully
designed and deliberately misleading: -
a) Issuing money, as a spurious bill of exchange, a so-called "irredeemable
obligation" (e.g. £ 1000 payable at sight to the bearer. Signed the Governor
of the Bank of Italy).
-
b) Defining the issue as the "creation and transfer of money". By signing
the spurious "bill of exchange", as a debtor, the governor of the central
bank arrogates the power of issuing money, to himself, improperly attributing
the induced value to himself.
8) Monetary scarcity
Money, even if it is a legal matter, is distinct from all others, because it
must possess the essential quality of scarcity. Every unit of measure has
got a quality corresponding to that, which it is supposed to measure. Since
money is the unit of measure of economic goods, which are limited in
quantity, i.e. they are scarce, money must, also, exhibit scarcity.
When money was gold, the scarcity of gold could assure the scarcity of
money. "Nominal money", which is independent of every form of reserve,
imposes the necessity to formulate a scientific law of scarcity. The limit
of the quantity of money has, hitherto, been based on the principle of the
"wisdom" of the central bank's governor, a sort of rational and functional
autonomy, independent of any political control.
The lack of stability in the value of money, which, more often than not, is
determined by speculative aims, has made evident the necessity to rigorously
define rational, scientific principles, on which a socially, useful limit of
monetary scarcity can be based.
This limit may be easily deduced from the indications of the market. Since
the "market price" is not only an indication of the value of the goods, but,
also, of the saturation point of the market, the market is full, when prices
tend to coincide with production costs. When this happens, it is opportune
to desist from an increase in the monetary supply, and from the production of
goods.
The schools of economics have tried to determine the parameters of monetary
increase, only, in relation to the increase, of the gross domestic product,
forgetting the human dimension. However, in the market economy, the consumer
is the person, who needs consumer goods, and money with which to buy them, so
it is imperative to integrate the rights of every human being, into a new
social law (with patrimonial content) dealing with the monetary question:
i.e. a citizens' income. Monetary increases have to be related, not only to
the gross domestic product, but, also, to the number of the persons of the
national community.
Since money is not only scarce, but, also, of neglible cost, it creates a great
gulf between exceedingly rich,, and desperately poor classes. The great
difference between wealth and poverty has been, historically, determined by
substituting for commodity money, "nominal money" of neglible cost . The
central banks, motivated by ethics, based on purely, economic considerations,
have not operated on the principle, "it is advantageous to be right
(just)"-- in which case, money should have been accredited to the people --
but rather on the principle, "it is right to do that which is
advantageous". Consequently, money has been issued as a debt to the people.
So, the banking system expropriates the national community, and forces them
into debt, by lending what is, in fact, owed to them. This means that at the
act of issue, the cost of money is already 200% . This enormous and heavy
cost is usury (as explicitly confirmed by Dr. Luigi Donato, co-director of
the supervisory board of the Banca d'Italia in reply to a specific question,
by the author of this article, on the occassion of a conference on the
subject of usury held at the University of Macerata on Feb. 7 1996).
The legislators have, hitherto, only concerned themselves with "minor usury".
After the discovery of the principle of induced value, it is of the utmost
importance to correct this system of "usurocracy", which is wreaking havoc
with the economy. It is obvious, indeed, that no productive activity can
bear such a heavy cost, and all available evidence demonstrates that this is
in fact so.
With the written replies to parliamentary questions (of Senators Patarino
and Pasetto, Parliamentary Acts CII Legislature), Under-Secretaries Pace and
Vegas declared, on behalf of the Italian Treasury that the Bank of Italy is
not the owner of money, but it is a debtor. This is not enough for us, we now
want to know, who is the owner.
The first Civil Section of the Court of Rome has fixed 6 December 1996 to
deliver its judgement in the case, which we have promoted, against the Bank of
Italy, to obtain a judicial ruling, in order to confirm that the Italian
citizens are the real owners of the national money. A confirmation of this
principle will underline the necessity for an alternative proposal with
regard to the monetary system.
9) Money as an asset. Practical consequences of the project.
For these reasons we have proposed a new type of money, which possesses the
positive quality of gold money, but not the negative one, and the positive
quality of "nominal money", but not the negative one. When we speak about the
positive quality of gold money, we mean that the bearer is the owner; by the
negative quality, we mean that it creates problems, because of the extreme
scarcity, which cannot be easily controlled. The positive quality of "nominal
money" consists of the fact that it doesn't create problems of scarcity; the
negative quality consists of the fact that it currently exists, only, as
debt-money. Therefore, the formula, we propose, is "nominal money owned by the
citizens", as detailed in Senator Natali's legislative draft (n. 1282, 11
January 1995, Senate's Acts CII Legislature), which concerns "the popular
ownership of money" and which states:-
Art.1 "At the act of issue, money is the property of all Italian citizens
and must be credited to the state by the central bank".
Here, the most important word is "credited", which replaces "debited". In this
way, debt-money becomes asset-money. -
Art.2 "To every citizen, a code of social income is attributed, by means of
which, the sum of income, which has been produced by the monetary issue, and by
other sources of income, can be credited to him".
If the "fiscal code" is used for the purpose of payment, the "code of social
incomes" is used to collect money. Since property is an enjoyment protected
by law, it is, as such, the enjoyment of two goods: the good, which is an
object of law, and the law, itself ,satisfies the need of legal
certainty. This means that a person is not, only, the owner of money, but he
has also the right to claim it. This is possible, because money, even if it
is a collective good, is a personal private property, being created by
social convention, and it is attributed to the bearer, thanks to the induced
value, which is incorporated into the symbol.
Since the moment of enjoyment of the value is strictly individual and cannot
be delegated, it is not possible to attain it "by proxy". This is why
property -- which is a legally protected enjoyment of goods -- must be
attributed to human beings, and not to corporate bodies. Otherwise, the
pathology of capitalism is created, which has been analyzed by "Centesimus
Annus" (n.42) and which consists of the absurd pretension to establish an
organic representation for the legal enjoyment of goods. We could say that
if people's function is to "be hungry", then the government's function is to
"eat on behalf of the people ". This is also the essential message of
Menenio Agrippa's apologue in the spirit of solid Roman wisdom.
After having confirmed that money is the property of the citizens, it will
be possible to make a rational reform of the fiscal system. The State could
hold what is necessary for the needs of the whole community, at the act of
issue. In this way, taxation is made at the source, avoiding the necessity
of spending so much time on banal, routine, book-keeping activities, not to
mention prosecutions and tax avoidance.
With the introduction of the citizen's income, by means of the code of social
incomes, it becomes possible to eliminate the desperate need for money and,
hence, usury.
Contractual conflict in working relationships can be minimized. After having
strengthened the position of the weaker contracting party, the contract of
work, based on respect for the given word, could be revived, because the
contract is, now, voluntarily sought after, and it is no longer determined by a
state of severe need. For the same reason, we could expect a decrease in the
crimes against property and prostitution.
The loss of national vitality can be eliminated. Young people, because of
the severe monetary scarcity caused by debt-money, cannot establish a
family, because they do not have reasonable possibilities to secure the
economic means with which to support it.
Additionally, we cannot keep silent about the enormous waves of emigration
and immigration. Money is to man as water is to a fish. During periods of
drought, the fish must leave the dry area to seek refuge wherever they find
a pool of water. Similarly, the nineteenth-century bankers moved a lot of
people from Europe to North of America, contriving a monetary scarcity in
Europe and an abundant supply of money in America, with monetary symbols of
negligible cost: the paper dollar. Nowadays, the puppet-masters of history
move the people of the Third World towards Europe, because they have planned
the mixture of races and cultures, in an absurd attempt to create a sort of
global, human zoo.
The only rational and definitive solution of these problems is to make every
people the owner of its own money, so that it may live in peace on its own lands.
10) The "secret" of the great commercial banks.
Only by means of the theory of the induced value, is it possible to explain
the presence of such great quantities of money on the market. According to
the estimates made by the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the
global amount of exchange and interest rate transactions is US $ 1200 billion
every day.
The heads of the global banking system have understood that monetary value
is caused by a convention. The ones, who can take part in this convention, can
be persons, or the legal phantoms, of the, so-called, instrumental
subjectivities. (It is not by coincidence that all the banking structures of
the world are anonymous societies). Cleverly exploiting these phantoms, the
ability has been developed to create or destroy, in a completely arbitrary
fashion, enormous quantities of induced value (in the guise of any monetary
symbol) by means of agreements between phantoms - i.e. by means of mutual
loans.
We are living in a time of great change, where the heads of the banking
system are attempting to destroy masses of living people, by means of
phantoms. Humanity can only survive, if it attains the consciousness that it
is the owner of the world of values.
The only possibility to eliminate the hegemony of the "great usury", in order
to allow humanity to live and enjoy life, on a new human dimension, is to
inscribe in the legal code of all nations, the principle of the popular
ownership of money (in accordance with Senator Natali's legislative draft
presented to the Italian Parliament, n.1285/95).
We can be certain that if the principle of the "popular ownership of money"
is integrated into the Maastricht Treaty, our Continent will be in the
forefront of the global economy, living on a new dimension of civilization,
which is based on a truly human foundation.
Prof. Giacinto Auriti
UNIVERSITĄ DI TERAMO
per "Moneta" Pagina Successiva
Ritorno alla Pagina Indice di Moneta
Ritorno alla Pagina Indice di Moneymaker
Return to Moneta Home Page
Return to Moneymaker Home Page