Part 3 of my translation of Ezra Pound’s Carta da Visita.
La Moneta
Currency is a security, quantitatively determined, exchangeable at will against any commodity offered on the market. In this sense, it differs from a train ticket, which is a specific “security,” and not for a general purpose.
It is not enough to say that money is a “symbol of work.”
It is a symbol of collaboration. A certificate of work completed within a system, which is valued or consecrated by the State.
The currency of the state, or the empire, is always a proclamation of sovereignty. Sovereignty entails the right to mint or print currency.
“Inside a system,” means that the money must be a certificate of work in service to the nation, legitimized by the state and endowed with a determined value for the nation.
There has been and continues to be much confusion regarding the purpose of money. The confusion does not arise from the nature of currency, nor from the natural stupidity of the public.
It was a Rothschild that wrote: “Those that understand this will be intent on exploiting it, and the general public may never understand that (the usurious system) is contrary to their interests.” (Letter from the Rothschild brothers, citing J Sherman, to the company of Ikleheimer, Morton etc. on June 25, 1863).
Monetary Culture, which should have never separated from that of master literature, can be traced from Demosthenes to Dante, from Salmasius to the Money of M Butchart; from the indignation of Antoninus Pius at the attempts by some to exploit the misfortunes of others, for example, sailors etc
“duol che sopra Senna
induce, falseggiando la moneta”
After the declaration of Ministers Riccardi and Funk, there may no longer be any need to reprint this perennial story, the story of the battle with the banks, and in any case, one can not fully explain the struggle in a Carta da Visita.
Credit is a social product. It does not depend on the individual alone. The trust that you have in me paying you one hundred lire in the year XXX, is conditioned by the social order, from the inertia of civilization, from the probability and possibility of the human complex.
To say that the State can not function or create because it lacks money is as ridiculous as saying you cannot make a road because you lack kilometers.
Phrases considered crazy seven or ten years ago are not difficult for the reader today, they are no longer considered the mischief of the mad traveler or pilgrim.
That which conditions the capacity of the state is nature, the presence or possibility of producing food, but to a higher degree, it resides in the sheer will and physical vitality of the people. And the collective will is concentrated.
So wrote the Florentine Secretary: Mankind lives in the few.