Introduction to the "Theory of Economic Relativity"
Written by Carlos Bondone   

This first "opinion" article is a brief and simple introduction of the new scientific theories developed in extention in my book "Theory of Economic Relativity - The Solution to Monetary [currency] Crises - A critique to present economic theories: Austrians, Keynesian and cuantitativists". This idea has arisen as a result of noticing in comments from knowledgable academics and researchers, that they declare that although they made one first reading of the book, they realized that they are in front of a "new monetary [currency], macroeconomic and economic time theory", something "very important", "complex", "solid", "dense", "of high scientific content", "etc.", reason why they need more time to study it, mainly because they are met with a new way to see economics, with new terms and a strong critique to the ones in effect. Something like saying that in the arenas of money [currency], macroeconomics and economic time, there has to be reframed the whole way of thinking them.

In order to make the studying of my theories easier, here goes this introduction focused in its conclusions and derivations, leaving aside the scientific method deployed in the book (formulation, corroboration and comparison of theories).

Exchange and money [currency]
Man identified spontaneously that life in society of economically different human beings (different in their neeeds and their ability to produce economic goods), would allow them to improve their economy by means of the specialization of each one in their relative greater ability to produce certain economic goods. This led each individual to producing much of a good and little or anything of others, situation that allowed them to realize the necessity to exchange the outcome of that specialized work. A form to exchange was barter, a "very expensive" instrument because of its inefficiency, since one party should have exactly what the other needs and viceversa. The need to solve the problem of exchange in barter, was called liquidity. Human beings give the name currency: exchange economic good of common use, to the economic good that satisfies liquidity, and during the first times he uses as such money: present economic good used as currency.
Due to the increament of exchanges, and with this the economic progress of man in society, evidently the liquidity problem became more serious and money became an obstacle as barter was, with time it was becoming "more expensive" (because the need for liquidity was increasing faster than the production-supply of money in gold form, which in Keynes'  words turned into the 'bararous relic'). But man in society discovers (again, spontaneously) that there is an economic good that let them dodge the monetary [currency] conundrum with money form, and that discovery, no less, is money [currency] in form of credit. Without getting into the scientific complexity of the subject, it is enough to emphasize that credit can perfectly function as money [currency] to make exchanges easier and in a more economic, less expensive way than money.
Thus, we see that credit is an economic good that competes with money to satisfy the same need (liquidity).
But it is necessary to emphasize specially the fundamental underlaying differences between this "simple theory" and the ones in effect, in order to begin sketching in our minds how economy should be thought under the light of these new concepts:

  1. Money and barter are part of what is called cash: interpersonal exchange of present economic goods.
  2. Credit is: interpersonal exchange of present economic goods by future economic goods.
  3. From both previous points, these simple but strong conclusions arise:
    1. Money and credit are not comparable, since credit belongs to the sphere of the interpersonal exchanges, which is at the same level of cash (which materializes in two ways: barter or money).
    2. The difference between barter (direct exchange) and money (indirect exchange), which all the current monetary [currency] theories are based on to study money [currency], is totally irrelevant for economics, yet not for finance.
    3. Another error of considerable magnitude in current monetary [currency] theories consists in treating monetary [currency] theory from the theory of money alternatively, as if they belonged to the same sphere, as well as to confuse credit with money and viceversa. A clear expression that supports this confusion is the generalized definition that money is everything that acts as money, which is to say that an automobile and a road are equal because they both transport us.
  4. The difference between using credit as money [currency] and not cash (money-exchange), is the economic time, no less. Without its intervention, both instruments of exchange are equal.
  5. The Theory of Economic Relativity (TER) says that economic time: is the only economic good that materializes inevitably in another present economic good, it doesnt have life on its own, as all the other economic goods do have.
  6. Therefore, we can say that credit: is the interpersonal exchange of economic time.
  7. Interest is the price of economic time.
  8. Then, when the credit is used as money [currency], interest (its price) happens to be used as a unit of measurement in economy. But interest, for being economic time, is also subjected to the TER.
  9. All this deductive order of economic causality, allows us to conclude that the so called monetary [currency] prices are the same entity as interest rate, when credit is used as money [currency].

The first conclusions are to observe that there dont exist two worlds, a real and a monetary [currency] one, a real interest rate and monetary [currency] one, an indirect transmission mechanism (amount of money [currency], prices and interest), either the economic equilibrium of real estate market and of money [currency] market.
Later we will observe how all the developed macroeconomic scaffolding in the 20th century falls apart, but before that, we must make a stop in the following point.

Money [currency] in form of irregular credit
I have classified credits in two very useful entities, regular and irregular one, stressing as the relevant difference to make this distinction the one that indicates us that irregular credit is the one which doesnt specify the quality and amount of the present economic goods which it will be cancelled with.
Its clearly observable that what we know as paper money (PM) is an irregular credit (an analysis in depth, see it in the mentioned book). To verify this is enough with having in your hand a note of any country and trying to identify in what amount of an specific present economic good it will be cancelled.
On the other hand, the so called fiduciary media (FM), represent the credit that is generated through the financial system, which is payable as well in irregular credit, PM.
This way we see that legislations on financial matters consider the credits as cancelled with the use of PM and FM, which according to the theories presented here, is simply novation of debt. The same happens with the operations identified as cash in which PM and FM take part, which are in fact credit operations, and irregular.
The scientific development (in the mentioned book) on the implications of the irregular credit tells us that when it manifests as PM it originates direct appropriation of other people's wealth, and when it manifests as FM it originates indirect appropriation of other people's wealth.

Money [currency] and macroeconomics
Because macroeconomics is in charge of the study of economy in society (economy of a set of economic agents), its evident that what affects the exchanges of economic goods between human beings, necessarily affects macroeconomics.
We also know that the production of economic goods has grown exponentially as a result of the interpersonal exchange of the larger production of economic goods due to specialization. The interpersonal exchange was turning from the state of cash (barter and money) to credit, which permitted to lower the costs of satisfying liquidity. But financial institutions orchestrated by man to face the liquidity problem, form an irregular monetary [currency] system: economic system that adopts irregular credit as money [currency], which originates appropriation of other people's wealth (direct and indirect).
Then, the question is the following: Why this order? And the answer is, because the financial order world-wide is supported by the error of the present scientific theories.
Paying attention to these new monetary [currency] theories is evident that all the present macroeconomics derived from the monetary [currency] theories in effect, lack of suitable theoretical sustenance. Therefore, all the macroeconomic developments of the 20th century fall apart, among which we find: to introduce the stretching variable "unemployment" to explain monetary [currency] disequilibrium; not to be able to explain the passage from a very expensive money (the keynesian "barabrous relic") to a money that had to be "made more expensive" (raising the interest rate) because it was too cheap (what I call "Keynes' paradox"); to speak of zero or negative interest rate; to consider the existence of two worlds to equilibrate, a "real" and a "monetary [currency]" one (S = I, IS-LM curves, 45 curves, aggregate supply and demand curves, etc.); Phillips' curves; Garrison's graphs; inflation-deflation; unemployment; Gresham's Law; neutral money; money[currency]-price-interest transmission mechanism; etc.

Monetary [currency] policy
Its evident that what is called monetary [currency] policy, is no more than a mere attempt to give a scientific dye to actions that, according to these new theories, configure appropriation of other people's wealth (direct and indirect).
It is necessary the presence of present economic goods so that the interpersonal exchange is configured, whether this may acquire the form of cash (barter or money) or of credit (regular or irregular).
The theories outlined here (corroborated in the aforementioned work) state that those who grant credits in irregular financial systems are the proprietors of the present economic goods that give origin to them, not the "banks", who are their recipients.
In other words, the causality of the origin of credit in irregular monetary [currency] systems is towards the financial system not from it.
If already we know that irregular financial systems dont generate any money [currency], but that its the "market" (joint of proprietors of present economic goods) the one that determines its amount and quality (where it gets its value and prices from), the following questions arise: Why the existence of irregular monetary [currency] systems?, Why its regulation -amount, quality and price- in charge of the State?, Is it feasible the independence of the central bank from the political power?, Does the financial system as a whole escape its connivence with the political power? Whom do interests originated in irregular monetary [currency] systems correspond to?, etc.
These new theories make clear that there is no such thing as a monetary [currency] policy, but that wed rather speak of appropriation of other people's wealth policy, where the harmed ones are those farther from the knowledge on the "financial" affairs, and the ones who benefit are those who better handle the "rational expectations".
It isnt difficult to see that its very tempting to dominate an economic good as important as money [currency], especially when the State is provided with the theoretical sustenance that let it benefit from two essential characteristics: concentration of monetary [currency] credit in its hands, along with the faculty to determine the quality and amount of the economic good present which it will cancel that concentrated monetary [currency] credit with. If we add to that, that credit has replaced money in the role of money [currency], and the increasing relative importance of the interpersonal exchange as a factor for generating wealth, exchange that as well requires money [currency] as an instrument for its concretion, we see how the bank-politics set closes as a power factor that attempts on democracy. In other words, in a meeting of few the destiny of many is decided.
It is observed that economic theories made valid the behavior of the emperors to maintain their extravagances (luxuries and wars), and that those same theories validate the same actions done by an "elected State-Emperor".

The special thing in economics is the study of economic time, not of money neither of currency, as well as it is not correct to make equal money theory and monetary [currency] theory, or to study both at the same level, as bad as it is to treat alike money and credit, and to assign to interest the quality of being the price of money and not of economic time, that when it is exchanged interpersonally configures credit.
On the other hand, in irregular monetary [currency] systems, the economic good taken away from his legitimate proprietor is economic time, which is materialized inevitably in another present economic present good (TER). This takes to us to think that each human being will take part in the damage according to the economic goods that form their environment.
Put naked the immorality of the irregular monetary [currency] systems, from now on their use is a political means exclusively, as with these theories is lost the scientific sustenance that confirmed the corruption inherent to its essence.

The scientific precision leads me to suggest that the solution to the problem that economy poses (to palliate scarcity of man in society), comes by the hand of generating institutions which guarantee the correct functioning of freedom, trust and solidarity; wherever they arent present there is no economic development, and wherever they exist (obviously in an imperfect form, as everything human), there is. To sum up, with a regular monetary [currency] sustem, it is feasible to walk towards a world in which: taking advantage of the fact that we are all different, we may be each and all better, as we become more.
It is not difficult to conclude then, that I present new theories that have to do with the economic world, political, legal, financial and accountable.

The conclusions of my research make raise a world of hope to me.

Buenos Aires, September of 2006.


Translator Note: The distinction between money and currency is essential in this work. The author places the term "currency" as a more general categorization than that implied in "money". Thus, currency can acquire whether the form of money or of credit, and this last can be regular or irregular.

The reader will find an indication of which term is being referred to each time according to the theory, between the [ ... ] symbols. E.g. "monerary [currency]" will be pointing to the meaning "currency" and not to "monetary".

Visitas 185496