Economics has occupied most of my thoughts during my adult life, notwithstanding the secondary role it played professionally.
My first moment of intellectual euphory was attained in 1989, when I found out how the Economics for explaining the value of money taught in manuals was based on erroneous calculus under crude disguise.
My illusions on science being stronger than convenient, my ideas were quickly set aside by the Academia’s ‘killer reaction’, and I had to leave the profession, never abandoning the findings, editing them in several occasions and finally making them public a decade ago.
Six years ago circumstances brought me closer to economics from a more down-to-earth perspective – the crisis in the Euro system, which led me to launch a Euro-reform movement and to co-author the book ‘The reform of the Euro’.
Eventually the crisis was not overcome through law-reforming means but through unconventional policy which flooded the system with money – and the reform lost most of its appeal.
As Mario Draghi retired, we are witnessing a two-edges phenomenon: on the one hand, the counter-revolution is gathering steam under the banner of a proper interest rate on money; on the other hand, the absence of the predicted inflation gave new clout to the questioning of economic postulates regarding the value of money under the ‘modern monetary theory’ or other labels.
The present disarray seems to me the appropriate point in time to get back to the two main issues (1) the nature of economics and (2) the political construction of an equitable and efficient monetary system.
For debunking economics I concluded that one needs to deepen the understanding of the ethical and religious dimension of money. This must be done both within and out of the Western world, both in antiquity and in the modern times; finally, a parallel to the gravitational model with which the modern concepts of value were built must be fully explored. These are tasks that call for the cooperation of experts on ancient languages and cultures – most in particular classic Greek – physicists, historians and economists, or better, people knowledgeable of economic theories.
As for the political construction of a monetary system I argued for the necessity of giving priority to external accounts; the need of democratising its control and better understanding its foundations.
This debate is developed on a tightrope, as history abundantly shows how destructive the sapping of foundations or even the desacralisation of money has been for humanity. There is no question to come back to the errors of the past.
I am getting this website back on track as a kickstart for a discussion we hope will be fruitful.