Introduction
Money is more than just numbers on a spreadsheet; it is a complex web of mutual obligations and claims to recognition. This article analyzes how debt became the foundation of social order and why the modern financial system is approaching the limits of its capacity. You will learn how the evolution from the gold standard to fiat money has reshaped our reality and why political promises of prosperity are now logically inconsistent. Understanding the mechanisms of debt creation, the role of artificial intelligence, and the hidden costs of demographics will allow you to view the economy beyond the framework of a simple balance sheet, recognizing it as a field of tension between creditors and debtors.
The Anthropology of Money and the Evolution of Debt
From an anthropological perspective, money is a specialized form of a claim to recognition, serving three classic functions: a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value. Debt has evolved from a personal social practice based on faith (credere) and ritual amnesties to today’s impersonal banking system. The transition from the gold standard, which imposed external discipline, to fiat money enabled unlimited credit expansion, but also led to regular speculative bubbles.
According to Hyman Minsky’s mechanism, the financial system naturally tends toward instability, moving from a safe phase to Ponzi-style credit, where repayment depends solely on rising asset prices. An example of a structural flaw is the Eurozone: the lack of a fiscal union and the inability to devalue currency turned private debts into a public burden, forcing peripheral countries into devastating internal deflation. In this system, money has ceased to be a neutral tool, becoming an instrument of power and asymmetry between the center and the periphery.
The Paradox of Promises and Demographic Debt
Modern states are struggling with the problem of hidden debts—unfunded pension and social promises that demographics are making insolvent. Philip Coggan points to an "impossible paradigm": it is impossible to simultaneously repay debt at full value, avoid inflation, maintain benefits, and not raise taxes. This is a logical contradiction that forces the question: whose promise will we break?
Geopolitically, the center of gravity is shifting toward creditors like China, while the US remains the hegemonic debtor, financing deficits thanks to the dollar's status. Cultural differences deepen these tensions: from the Islamic prohibition of riba (which mandates risk-sharing) and the American culture of bankruptcy as a second chance, to the European obsession with stability. In times of crisis, these intuitions translate into conflicting prescriptions: some will choose inflation, others harsh budget cuts, saving the system they understand best.
The New Economy and the Debt Constitution
Modern macroeconomics views debt as an active generator of reality rather than just a passive background. In this context, artificial intelligence becomes a double-edged sword: it can serve as a surveillance tool (SupTech) to detect anomalies or accelerate the "herd-like nihilism" of algorithmic markets. Global business is already internalizing the necessity of financial repression—keeping interest rates below inflation, which is a hidden form of wealth transfer from creditors to debtors.
Escaping this trap requires the creation of a debt constitution and international arbitration tribunals to fairly resolve sovereign disputes. We must distinguish real wealth from the "city of promises," where virtual entries replace real productive capacity. Instead of maintaining the illusion of full repayability, we should focus on investments in public goods and high-multiplier innovations that will actually expand the future resource pool rather than merely multiplying empty accounting claims.
Summary
In a world where virtual promises multiply faster than real resources, can we still believe that every debt will be repaid at full value? Or perhaps it is time to dare to revise our collective illusions before the system of claims collapses under its own weight? The question is not whether we will avoid paying the bill, but how to fairly distribute its burden and whether we are capable of bearing it at all. We must learn to distinguish towers built of flimsy promises from the foundations that actually support our common home.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF