Okay, well, thank you for enviting me. It's very properate to present,
what I want to say,
at a forum of plue elism of message and economics,
because impect, were a few different paradigms that I'm looking at,
but the essens of what I'm going to present,
some of you,
I see the faces,
probably familie with the idea,
is from these book have been working on for why
now on the political economy of liberty and money
And impoticular, I will report now or Samurai,
some of the essential thoughts of the search app that which is cold money.
There will be other chap this which are more mythodological and
more political philosophy style. But this particular chap,
there is the core of the book. And as the title says,
some of you have been involved in developing that here,
because this book comes out of Seminars, I've part
now here for sex years in Hamburg, as well is in peace.
And so some of you maybe familia with what my argument is.
The basic idea is that that that that that me say definitely.
I have worked in the 1990s, on the one hand and creating the Euro and I
was involved with some of the intellectual construction of a new currency,
which has post many Challenges,
that ordinary economics textbooks never will be confronted with.
What is money, how does it work,
what how is it translated into the concrete practices of businesses,
people individuals, governments, all those issues?
And in parallel, why I was doing that in Paris,
I founded NGO, to support that democracy movement in Bermer.
And there was way involved with the democratic movement in Bermer.
And after 10 years working with them,
I came to the conclusion that The Markuracy and Human Rights
is a much more complex story than what we ordn't are really think.
Because the ideas are not that self-obvious, the American Declaration of independences,
it is self-evident truest, we all born equal.
And I think nothing is less self-evident, then this idea.
And what I found and burmer is that the culture, the society there, even
if they would say, we want to mocracy,
did not really have an idea what that mented,
what the implications of that were.
And how to deal with each other,
not just between government and the people,
but also in terms of the normative ideas,
how man dieses with hireky and emancipation of people.
I have metal ong sensuggee and how house at
one point had long discussions with her
And after with, I came to the conclusion,
that even if she became president of Berma.
The road to the macracy will take, I very long
time. And then fact, we see it today,
she's running to be come president, where the that will happen
more not with the militaries, we don't know.
But we know to she's says nothing about the drama of
the rowingers in the West of Berma.
And even if she were president, reculture of the country,
still, what have to undergo and the enormous transformation.
So that we would feel that this cohers with a standards of
the markus see and human rights as we understandard in the west.
So I ask myself the question, what are the agents,
what is the driver that transforms, a society,
so that it can accept and understand and live and put into practice,
the norms of freedom equality,
recognize that this are essential human rights
No, as I was working at the same time in inventing in new currency,
somehow in my mind, obviously things got a little bit blöd.
And I came up with this basic intuition,
at first, was not more than intuition,
that it has to do with money it,
money and the monetary economy.
After all berma is one of the purest countries in the world.
Now, there's a large literature out there, that's says.
Economic growth with faster democracy and human rights.
There's an in others literature other papers, that's say.
But not too much, Robert Baros one of those
That's Huntheims, the Emphises is on levels of income,
GDP, other times on leb on rates of growth.
Bleibt all in all, there is a very clear relationship,
between indicators of liberty and human rights on the one side
and high income countries on the other side.
However, the evidence is not intirely
You nannamis on all this. And in fact,
there's another interesting paper by Olsen and Someothers,
that has emphesized that what is essential in terms of
using money is what they're call contract intensive money.
And in the first chapter of my book,
I have look that the data for this contract intensive money,
which strongly related to an increase in the probability of political
rights and civil liberties as measured by freedom house index.
The idea behind this and the paper by allsen comes way
closed to the much more see oretical approach that I have taken,
which is to say, it is money that the termins,
the normativity of a modern society.
More the normativity of a modern society as I definited is
one and which the statement to say,
we are all born free and equal
Find acceptens. Now you can say, what does it
mean to find acceptance? We can have a long talk
about that, but in Essens, what I mean,
by that is that the probibility that such statement is understood.
And that is accepted is relatively high. And so my question is,
how come the process or the history of mankind has move from a state are societies,
which I call holistic, which are essentially high rakical.
And then which individuals have to surrender to society to the
rule of important people, the big man, the kings,
the dictapeers etc., how come, in such a society,
people came to believe that they can be free and equal.
And I don't think that is
obvious at all
My High Processes, my conjuction, is that this normatile modern normativity,
which I also care political individualism, is generated by the monitary credit economy.
And the reason for that is, that the monitary credit economy
is build on the content on the principle of contracts.
The principle of contract means that when people are meeting in the contractual situation,
Those sides of the contract to a contractual relation can accept
or reject the terms of the contract.
And this very capacity of saying as on know, makes them free.
However, this is true on both sites of the contract.
There for, there are also equal in their liberty.
So in other witz,
what I'm possibly lating is that the normativity of modernity is
related to
the contract principle
That constitutes, individuals as free normatively as free and equal partners.
I not say, there is no power, I'm not saying,
there is there always free that treedom is perfect and all that.
I'm not saying that at all.
What I'm saying is that this is a normative relationship,
where buy individuals meet as free and equal.
And that freedom and equality in this contractual
relation are linked
There's not a trade off, between more freedom,
and less equality or more equality and less freedom,
as Isaiah Berlin has famously ritten in his famous book on true concepts of liberty.
And this contractual paradime, the logic is,
that freedom and the quality come together.
And they come together, because individuals have that freedom,
now. You may object and say, well,
there's power relationships,
take the labor contract
The worker, the proletarian is marks would say,
has to signed the contract, because he needs the living
and this is the power relationship, no doubt.
But marks also's talk about the doublely free, doppelt freie Labor,
which means that in marks terms it means the worker is free to engage in the work contract,
but he's also free of his means of production,
which give him less power to negotiate,
which is why trade unions,
have to coming compets at this lack
of power
Maver the less, Max was the first to recognize,
that this formal liberty is an enormes breaks to compared to the previous period,
the futel period, the slavery periods, when people,
when not able to say yes on not to the terms of a contract,
where in fact, because they didn't have that freedom,
it was also unthinkable to have somehing like trade unions,
and organized worker negotiations.
So it is in this sense, that I say the
contractually economy is establishing interaction relogic, between free and equal individuals.
This is the first point and herms off, what many does,
and why I believe, it is constitutive of modern liberty.
But there is a second part to that. And that is that money also is,
and I think it is the only way up to explain,
how this normativity of the contract has become the driver across the planet,
how it has become possible that this idea that we are born free and equal,
has take and over the world decentially.
I mean, not that it is realized everywhere,
but that this idea is the Benchmark idea is the standard,
is the rule against which most societies are measured.
And it is in this sense that the monetary economy
has been the driver of modernity across the planet.
Now, why that is so, I want to explain
in this election
However, in order to understand this logic of money.
It is important, that we distinct wish some different paradigms of money.
And in fact, I will look at the exchange paradigm,
which is the standard paradigm of classical and neoclassically economics.
I will en also quickly talk about chartelism.
And which is an alternative way of intertapiting money.
And then seidly, I will look at,
what I call the contract paradigm or which some names
is call the liquidity paradigm of money,
which is essentially going back
to cance
In my class is,
I have also drawn a long away for all that,
where I show that the exchange paradime,
goes all the way back to john lock,
weil I argue that the contract paradime goes from hops to cans and further on.
So let us look at this we paradimes quickly.
The exchange paradime, focuses on the economy as
in it a action,
between people
That exchange use for goods and services. Money in this
context is a means of exchange. But what matters,
the real stuff for the economy, is is actually exchanging useful
goods or commodities, or services, against teach other.
Now, in that sense, money is new too,
it cannot really be important in any respect,
in certainly cannot have any normativity,
because it is just there to facilitate the exchange of
goods and services between people who want to
have them
This is obviously, it is so intuitive,
that hardly anybody would question this idea,
that economics is about changing goods in services.
How ever, then a few problems with that.
First of all, there is the issue of value serie.
The classical value serie, which goes not only back to lock,
but also fear the all the way, to our stottle.
Essentially said, that exchange is fair,
What marks calls, it's exchange of equivalence of Values,
if the Value of good sexchanged, is in the proportion of the goods.
Now, what that means in terms of money,
of course, and marks is way clear on that,
it is that money must be a commodity, like any other commodity,
agazed which we exchange, all the real well, the commodities.
Now, that in itself
No longer halls. In the old day is the argument
was of course that go this such a commodity,
or silver is such a commodity and so we would exchange
money against other commodities in the same way as in the barter economy one would exchange,
apples against pas.
Or Iris total said, I think he said,
three beds for one house, I will is one that
what kind of houses and beds they head in those days.
Because we wouldn't really get those kind of exchange,
it's now it days. And he how,
the idea in this is that What you give on the
one side and what you receive on the other side,
must have the same value.
Now when you are thinking of paper money,
credit money, obviously this idea, doesn't really work.
Because paper money is something else. It's stands for something,
but we would need to understand what it really stands for.
Now. Of course, there is a number of development,
since the classical times in this respect.
I probably the most common
Most genly accepted idea now it days is,
that this concept of money is competible or is expressed by the quantity serie of money
or modern monitorism friedman. That basically say,
as money is a token and as such it is must
stand in the right proportion to the real goods of society.
So that the exchange can then go on nuturally as we
always have as jumped and the classical paradime
So, in night sense, the quantity theory is nothing else,
but this essentially bart a theory of money being something and
relation to real goods.
But what really matters is to have the commodities, that provide utility.
So the normativity of the exchange paradime is essentially utility maximization.
We are, we want to have goods and services,
because they are useful, they yeard
utility for us and we want to a sadisfy our desires,
which is viding this utility
If you take that line, then why would the economy,
why would the monetary economy increase, why would we have economic growth,
why would we have a cumulation of capital.
And the answer, the only answer, under this paradime is,
that it's in the nature of human beings to be greedy.
Always more, more, more. I don't think,
the story is that simple. So we have,
and this exchange paradime, we have two normative Aspects.
The one is the Micro Aspect, more more more,
and human naturem, is that we are greedy.
And on the macro level that the normative quiterien is
to establish priced ability, so that the exchange,
between goods and money is not disturbed by changes in the value of money.
The second paradime, I want to talk about is
charte listen. Charles ism originally goes back
to knapp
1905, but there's a new school,
neo chartelism that has revived some of the ideas or out this
. And inessens this school says that money is a token that is issued by the government. Now,
intuitively that also make sense, because what we carry in our pockets,
more all less or ways seems to be related to government. I mean,
I say, more all less, because I mean,
in London, the pound notes has the queen das sprintet,
die Queens saßen.
Ich bin promissiert, die Barre 20 Pounds, whatever that may mean. Und in Europa,
wir haben dieses fancy Dors and Windows,
wo wir nicht exactly governments sind,
aber so wie sie look quite impressive too,
if you take this line than of course the important institution
is the government or in the exchange paradime,
quantigy theory it would be the
central bank
In the exchange paradime, the central bank issues,
the money as a token,
but in the right proportion, therefore normatively,
you must have a central bank that is independent,
as an outside agent that interested that that is out of the preferences,
and therefore also outside the spaces of liberty of individuals as they interact in the economy.
In the charterlist paradime, it is somewhat similar,
but it is the government that issues the money.
Now what neo charter issues agus is that The way the government,
the government, not the central back,
the way the government issues, the money,
is by bying things, on be half of the government.
And in its some what distarted way,
they are you that the issuing of paper money,
is there for people to for phil their liability back to the government.
I've never fully and this start understood all the last,
we cares it happened and had it discussion the conference with
with Bandy Ray on this was the prime promoter on this,
who agus that the government issues money first and it never
has to borrow that this is all nonsense that the only way
why the government would issue government bonds is to take back money that has been issued to much.
So access money is been taken back by issuing bonds,
but inessens it is the government spending that issues the money.
In that respect, neo chartelism is fairly close to quantity
serie and the right proportion between the token and the goods
in that
In knapp, der ist ein Explosite-Passage, where here actually says,
money as like a token at the seat west year,
where you give your code and they give your chip and then
you take the chip and you get your code back.
Exaptly only difference is that it the seat to you get
back your code. And with money, you get something
else back. I mean, they may give election,
not here, but we be tomorrow.
And they give me a chip for that money
I will than use that to get back food and not
to get and other electure. So and that sense,
we see mediately that there is a question, what kind of talken,
what does the talken represent that the charter list paradime proposes.
And in many ways, that is the handicap,
that is the weekness of the Neocharter list paradime.
However, there is one interesting saw to in it.
And that is that they argue that money is a means
of payment to redeem taxas.
Tax liabilities to be precise
Now, that is that means we are moving from the exchange paradime,
where money is a means of exchange to a paradime,
where money is a means of payment.
And I think that is progress. How ever
the normativity of neocharter lism or traditional charter lism,
is pretty much incompetible with any considerations of liberty.
In fact very said, that he's been the cused of
being a fashest.
Because of his concept of money
I don't go as far as that, but I do think that,
what is coming to let's say the freedman monetarism.
And the neo chartel is paradise is that the each need a and authority.
And institution, that is outside the economy in ordered to
issue the money. In the dominant mainstream exchange paradime,
this is the central back. In the chartel list it
it doparadime, it is the government or the suverin.
And, you could say, well,
This is a rather, or sorry, tay and way.
And then some people argue yes, but if the government
is democratic, then this is a form of liberty.
This is of course true, but what is
remains on explain this? Why is the government,
democratic? What is the normative foundation of this democratic government?
And you can argue that this democratic up is foundation comes
from the idea, no taxation without representation,
which is the slogan of the american revolution
Wer ist ein Element? Why I think charter listen isness
a saily fashioned. But what always remains is that the authority
that issues the money, remains outside the rest of society.
So in that sense, it is like legal positivism,
where by the government imposes laws in this case imposes money.
The quantity of money, steers this supply of money.
But it is not under the,
it is not subject to the free choices of individuals
and therefore it is a separation between money
and freedom
What it also means is that in Neochartalism,
it is fiscal policy that determines, the that is assettually monetary policy.
Now, the said part time which I call the contract caradime,
is a way of a way different nature.
And the this pharma complex, and so let me explain to you,
how I enterpret this. In this part time money is
and asset that the transfer of which extinguishes that.
So money is in the context of a dead relationship.
First of all, notice that, that is related to contact.
There is no dead without contact. A conted dead contract
is a promise to pay something in the future.
For another in exchange for another promise to get something maybe now
or maybe also in the future
So, when you're making a promise like this?
You need to have a criteria,
by which you establish win the promise is capt.
And other witz, when the dead that is implicit in
the promise, is full filt, or extinguished.
And so, what that means is that in this context,
money is a means of payment.
I means of payment means that money is the condition of sities faction,
that contradicts, the condition of sities faction that The Contractshow
Relationship or the contractual promises have been full field.
Now, this is way different to the exchange paradigm,
because here money is full filling or a sign for full fulling the contract.
And this is relevant as well with respect to the serie of value.
I said early at the classical new classical series of own
you were about the value of commodities in exchange.
Relative prices. And the whole mainstream neoclassical economics essentially looks at real prices,
where by one looks at the exchange racials,
between goods and services
In this case here, we see that value is something else.
Value comes not out of the relationship of the commodity to another commodity,
value comes out of the interaction,
that is made or established between to people,
who mutually promise something to each other.
And in order to do that,
they need a unit of account, which is,
what they used to express the contractual terms by which the
promise has to be for filled
Now, of course,
you can pretty much use any kind of asset and say,
this, when you're chance for this asset,
the contract will before filled.
So, you can say, I give your five pounds of grain.
And then when I give you a promise to pay your
five growth pounds of grain and then that is
the quite the Unit of account,
by which we is tablished this contractual relationship
I'm sudent road to me today and said, well,
it could be buddles of Wodka,
which I thought was a good idea,
because she argio that Wodka has no intrincic money,
it just like pieces of paper, very nice.
How ever the point is that nearly any thing,
could be a means in which or through which we establish
where that the contract has been fulfill don't out.
It is in that sense, it's a talken,
but it's not a talken to exchange that gains goods.
It's a talken to sign
to show
That they contractual relationship has been for fill and that is the value.
Now, of course, the monetary economy is more than
any kind of asset. It is specific asset,
now it days,
the assets that we use and to express financial dead of financial contracts,
more genly problems is to make payment is in the is in the liability of backs.
It maybe the liability of the central bank,
cash all reserves, I'd maybe the liabilities of commercial banks
in terms of deposites of
all kinds
So, the question here than is if money is a token that simples that
or and asset that significe that the bed has been full filled,
how come we use specific asset,
where that was goal that one time a silber,
where that's now bank liabilities, how come that was the asset,
that was chosen to be money.
Now, this is a tricky story
It's into tains general theory in the 70s chapter,
which has been called by Hanson, the dark,
obscue a chapter and Hanson are you that nothing not much,
would have been lost, had it not been ritten,
but I disigree.
I think this is the core of cance. And this important
to understand, what is the basic idea behind this.
Now. Hanson was in American economists. In the 50
, 50, 60s.
What establishes that money that a specific asset becomes money in
the sense that it can for be full filled that it
full filled the function of generally being accepted as the sign that contract financial contracts,
promises, have been full filled.
Well, we need to go so that in three steps.
The first one is as can says, money is liquidity par excellence.
Which means it is not something that comes out of then
exchange relationship. But it is a, ähm,
it is an asset, the transfer of which is safe.
All to put it definitely, if I make a promise,
or we have a contract, it which stepulates,
that I have to make a payment of 100 Euros.
And I have Euros, I can be certain,
that this Euros in my pocket, will always extincuishe,
the normenal alliability that I have contracted,
when I have did made my dead contract
So it is the certainty of money,
comes out of the fact, that it is the same
thing as the medium in which the contract was ritten.
And there for I need to have this money in order
to be sure, I can do that.
And they other as it wouldn't do. If I say,
I have a real asset, for arguments say,
my house, as collateral, for the dead.
And they dye comes, I need to liquify, my house.
And of course, we do not know,
will be the money I get when I sell my house.
So there is the potential risk,
that there is a discount or there's a loss of value for any other asset,
when I need to like rified,
but only the asset in which the contract obligation has been formulated,
is the one that can also extinguished that that.
So that capacity of being safe in terms of norminally
extinguishing the dead is what makes money liquidity par excellence
And cance, algus that this liquidity,
is a you has a you carries a utility that is
absent from the ordinary exchange paradigm.
In the exchange paradigm, the utility of money is that
I can exchange the cance goods and that's what I want.
Here, there is something else in eddition to that.
Can't also has the stinguish between transaction motive for horring money,
which is somewhat similar to the exchange paradigm.
But he adds to it
The speculative or precussionary motive folding money,
which represence the liquidity aspect of money.
So in the cance in perspective money as Utility in itself,
because it is liquidity. And that raises and editional question,
which is, why do we pick a specific asset?
For that, for that, that, or,
what does and asset need to have,
that it can function as liquidity
pike cellence
And this is the final step in this reasoning,
which is that money must have purchasing power.
But why does that have purchasing power? It has purchasing
power because it discares. Now what does it mean that
money is cares? It means that the demand for money
is higher than the supply of money as such.
And we need to unto stand,
where this successity of money comes from.
It is something, that is usually absent from economic textbooks
on money
or monetary theory
By the this perfectly clear and evident to any central banker.
That there is a structural demand gap for money,
which allows the central bank to said,
the interestrate and do monitary policy and all those things.
When money is guess in this way,
then the market economy capitalism coming to being in the way
as we know it, which means we have bias markets.
What is a bias market? A bias market
is what the americans call the customers king
The opposite of a bias markets is what be used to know
and opselve in the formers of ideunion or in its dependent countries,
which means that the customer wasn't kids king, but silly,
but the person, who vice in possition of good sint and commodities that way useful to others.
When you are in a monetary economy,
money is guess and this scarcity allows you to say,
I was spend my money on your goods and services,
only if it is providing me, the Utility that I desire,
which means also have the freedom to choose,
it means as a consumer choice.
So that's a form of liberty of course,
not the only one, but it is one articulation of liberty.
But it also means that there is an asymmetry in bias markets.
Which means that the budget constraint in a monetary economy is
money and not the resources in the exchange paradime,
the budget constraint out the resources
So that you have a given a location of resources.
And then you need to allocate the mefficiently. Here,
the story is that you're the budget constraint is money,
the resources must necessarily be in excess and incirclas.
But what will then happen is gradially that this resources become
monetized as they are as they are pulled into contractual relationship.
And we're need to understand why that happens. But,
first we need to understand, why money is guess.
And this has to do with what can't call the
liquidity typremium
The liquidity premium ment that because money has the certainty that
I mentioned before of being liquidity parks alongs.
It carries a liquidity premium over other assets of
all other assets and fact can says, money is
liquidity part excellence, because it carries the higherst liquidity premium.
Liquidity premium here means, access to resources with out any
possible loss in terms of the contractual
But this liquidity typremium is a function of uncertainty in the
general sense. And the case band all his life,
thinking about uncertainty probibility in factors, what some people called PHD.
This is the tritties on probibility,
was has been concident as a general in theory asserts
theory of probibility and that his time people said that it
was an anex to better and russells,
prinzipiell mathematical and terms of mathematical philosophy
Can't Slatler has taken this insights for mystreeties of bobability in the
General Theory into is theory of liquidity and liquidity preference.
What has the liquidity preference than mean,
it means that because because holding money having at in possession,
provides security that I can service my promises,
under the financial contracts, I have engaged in.
Has in it vatage that if I give the money
up,
I lose
But if I will give that up, than I want
to be compensate it for the loss of life having this advantage.
As a consequence if you are, if I have money,
and you borrow money from me, I will say,
okay, let's make a dead contract.
And you have to compensate me for that. So,
at the end of the year, you have to give
me back more, then I'm giving you today.
So, let's say, I give you 100 years,
at the end of year, your promise,
you give me back 100 and 10.
This is a financial contract. Meaning it's express in terms
of money
What will you give we back at the end of the year, money?
But if you look at the ärgerget supply of money in the economy,
it means that you will have to give back more,
then you have received in the beginning.
Therefor, you will be short of money. And this
is the structural demand gap, that all central bankers know about.
This is what makes money scares. But because money
is guess in the sense, then it is necessary that
Die Supply of Money in Christus, die Central Bank,
must give editional liquidity into the market,
so that you can actually pay back in agry good, of course,
for the economy as alhope, that everyone can pay back that that,
if the central Bank would not give this editional
liquidity into the economy, we would have a crisis,
because some people would not be able to pay back that
that and that liquidity crisis would lead to insolvences and
economic crisis
The scarcity of money comes from the fact,
that money carries the liquidity premium, which is the interestrate.
Now, you can say, well, that's crazy,
because then it means the monetaries fear will just expand and lessly.
Well, to some degree that is true. However,
remember that in egonomics, we look at balance sheets,
money take economics, is essentially balance sheets.
Which means that if you borrow money,
I will only give it to you,
if there is an asset againsted, it maybe collateral,
it maybe just the promise, that you will produce something.
And therefore for you as a borrow, money is the liability,
Valone, that you have receive from your back.
But on the other side, you need to generate and
asset that matches that liability. Which means essentially,
that the economy must crow in real times,
in times of goods in services, at the same rate,
as the monetaries fear is expanding with the stylized interestate,
we are talking about here.
So another words, the scarcity of money,
that results from the liquidity premium and the fact that money is
liquidity pikes a lot. Requires that not only the monetaries
fear of the economy, but also the really economy has
to grow in the long
land equivalium steady state at the
rate of interests
Ja, of course there, des Sterbens des Schocks and crisis and always,
but this is sort of the long run steady state largic.
This has, how have it and this is my
hope point, interesting implications for the normativity of money.
Because remember I said, first of all,
the nature of money is that it comes out of the
contractual relationship and if it comes out of the contractual relationship,
it constitudes,
the normative principles between two individuals to interact as free and
equal partners
But now,
we have seen that not only does it constitued liberty in the sense,
we have seen also that this contractual relationship, must grow,
in the long one statey state equalibium at the rate of interest.
So that in that sense, the monetary economy is gradially
normatively crowding out, the traditional holistic hyrakical society logic,
where by people are
under hower and and him have to surrender to order and
the are location of
resources by non-contractual means
So, in that sense, money really than becomes a
fundamental, of becomes a foundation of modern liberty.
And it leads to the propagation and diffusion of the norms
of modern individualism, liberty and the quality as human rights,
through across the globe.
Now, one final point.
Why does all this matter
Well, it matters first of all, because this explains,
how money contributes to the normative transformation of societies and remember
I said, I was interested originally.
And what would transform the burn me society to understand human rights?
So more than transform the normativity means,
what would lead people to accept the statement,
that people are free and equal, that they're born free and equal.
And what would, what would lead to the fact
that they abandone
The idea, that essentially hyraki and submission is the principle
how to interact in the society.
So if money constitudes modernity, than we also see that
the growth dynamics of the monetary economy will crowd out.
The principles of traditional holistic hyraki and the bodination.
Another fact in this respect is that We have to understand
that what I'm proposing here is about norms.
The normative transformation office society. It is not necessarily the
same as the facts. In fact, we need on
the stand that norms in facts that two different things.
Norms, the content of rules, rules may structure and constitued social practice,
this out of which institutional and social facts immerge.
But the facts may also deviate from the norm
In fact this always agap between norms in facts.
But what is important on the stand here is that you
can only think the gap, if
you have the norm in the first place. So what
my monitory serie of liberty if I can short and it
that this way. What that really says is the normative,
the norms of reader mandy quality are generated in dorginessly by the monitory economy,
but it doesn't mean that they are necessarily implemented,
realized or reality
For that, we need other things,
we need a government that is ensuring on implementing and inforcing
rights and end and promises and contract etc.
But it is impossible to even say, this should be implemented.
And less you have an understanding for the norms.
Member one is in mind in 90s,
I was involved with a small group of people looking at
the seas fire in nosam burn up between the assnick minorities that were fighting with a military government in and goon.
And after they at then the season fire, we were
invited to see on the grounds, what it meant.
And we were received by the military general of the North Eastern Region of Berma.
And it was a very long and hard way up on
the terrible road, to cast todays to get up there.
And so the general receives assance, you see it,
table road, I'm really sorry,
but you should convince your governments that the world bank should give us credit.
So that we can have a better road. I said to well,
of course, you will get credits from the world bank,
if you Respect human rights and releaser
answer chief from hurt prison. Dieses, ha, human rights,
that just means that two is can lie on the beach with naked prests.
The point is that the third it and even understand, what this was about.
When I challenged time on first labor that we had seen
on the trip up that to the nothy said,
this is just the traditional way of how we do it in asure.
That people have to do work under the eurosarities in order
to create a better road.
The point I'm want to make us,
the normativity of what it means to be free
and equal
Is fine not found for this sky? And not just
because he is a bad dick tator and a militär runter, he
was a hing number three of the regie matter time.
But it his because it just this fine not found,
this norm hasn't entered the practices in that society at.
And so it's important to first distablishing ground the norms,
then we can go and say, okay,
this needs to be implement it.
This needs to be in first. And The acceptens of
this more than norms, freedom and equality is of course,
a very, how should I say?
Fickel thing. In particular, violations of the norms, may reject, the whole basis
on which the monetary economy is founded. Im particularly,
capitalism and the monetary economy will generate inequality,
because those who are the propieties of money and long it
out,
with receive income so the interest
So, in ever tably. The monitory economy, capitalism,
will generate in the quality. This is a violation of
the very normativity, that the monitory economy generates as norms. Which means,
you need to also have an agency, that corrects this imbalance,
that corrects this tendency of the monitory economy to undermine, it's very foundation.
Which is, why I believe that the welfare state,
and the emphasis on restoring a equality when it gets continuously undermind,
is a necessary condition, is in dispensible for maintaining,
not only, the monetary economy as such as an economic principle and system.
But also in order to insure that the normativity that the
monetary economy generates for modern freedom and equality, is actually accepted and acceptable.
When it is not, and we have seen many locations in history,
then of course,
the whole modernity principles will be thrown out of the
window and going to the waste ben
This is been essentially, what fashionesm was about,
what lennons culture, what lennons revolution and in the sowjetunion was about,
this is an many ways also, what funda
islamic fundamentalism is about now it this. Louis Demont has called this totalitarian,
temptation, a return to go back to the ancient principles of higher key,
and in a society where individualism has are ready developed to certain degree.
So, what I'm saying here is that without well first day,
that continuously corrects and restores,
the tendency of the monetary economy to generate in a quality.
It is probably unsustainable to believe that the unsustainable to maintain
the norms of modernity in themselves. And finally,
why does it matter well,
because what we also see here is that promoting liberty and promoting
human rights in the world will require the Will require a monetary economy based on contracts to function efficiently.
So another it's one has to establish the fundamental
functional rules of a monetaries economy such as price tability,
freedom of contract, non-intereference with individual rights etc.
In order for the system to be able to sustain itself.
So in order, I like to tickle you,
my, my readers and my my listeners little bets,
also be a bit provocative. I want to like to say,
the in the end it might well be,
the IMF has than more to promote liberty in the world,
then Amnesty international, because in many ways,
the IMFs job is to its stall the principles of a
functioning monitary economy without which Amnesty wouldn't have a job.
So maybe, we stop it here and we can have
a little bit of a discussion.
Thank you. So thank you for your interesting presentation.
I think we have a controversion debate