Giacinto Auriti taught that money is first and foremost a legal matter based on “trust”. The historical evidence of this is the dispute between John Maynard Keynes and Harry White during the Bretton Woods Conference. But the question that arises, to which any Auritian thought fails or finds good historical arguments to answer, is this: why should I trust my neighbour? Who guarantees me that my neighbour will behave like me by accepting monetary symbols? In other words, who is the ultimate guarantor of the “prediction of the behaviour of others” or the “source of the conventional monetary value“? The monetary agreement has not only a horizontal legal importance, but also a vertical and state dimension. The origins of monetization are sacred and its most authentic dimension is political because it is always necessary for the Political Authority to be the guarantor of trust, of conventional monetary value. This has gradually emerged from the Bank of England’s successful experience, but for speculative purposes.
Subsequently, there was a historical turnaround with the subordination of issuing banks to the states. But since the 1980s, the financial power has regained its illegitimate hegemony. Between the political authority and the financial power, a complex and controversial relationship has always existed within the framework of a kosmos that is often betrayed. However, it is still possible, through an accounting system, to restore the conventional value of the currency and issue it without the burden of debt and interest.
Gold, money, trust, political authority, central bank, conventional value and credit value.