Mother Pelican
A Journal of Solidarity and Sustainability

Vol. 15, No. 5, May 2019
Luis T. Gutiérrez, Editor
Home Page
Front Page


How To Use Public Policy To Guide Accumulation
Toward Virtuous Ends

Michael Emmett Brady and Carmine Gorga

Originally published in
Econintersect, 17 February 2019

From Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, and Adam (Smith) to Concordian Monetary Policy

Abstract: Aristotle, followed by Augustine, Aquinas, and Adam Smith, recognized, to a lesser or greater degree, that the ownership and control of private property (wealth, money, riches) is an initial, necessary condition to be able to put one's self in a position to help others in need. A person is or has been corrupted by the process of wealth creation if that person decides that he/she will not help others in need.


Adam Smith attempted to move beyond the political analysis of Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas on the question of whether economic growth (accumulation of wealth) would or would not promote Virtue (giving) or Vice (greed). Smith believed that the effective control of money and loans by an independent Central Bank would create an institution that could promote the fortunes of those who were charitable (the sober people) while penalizing /neutralizing those who were greedy (the prodigals, projectors ,and imprudent risk takers).This would prevent a state from degenerating into the type of state epitomized by Athens in 400 BC.

The Central Bank would maintain the dominant economic position of a very large, prudent, circumspect, judicious, careful, frugal, thriving middle class by skewing credit and loans toward them and away from the prodigals, projectors, and imprudent risk takers, who made up the rich, upper income class.

History did not bless Adam Smith with the achievement of his ideals, ideals that were a distillation of the wisdom of the ages. Another chance is given us by the development of Concordian monetary policy. Will we avail ourselves of this opportunity? Intellectually, this paper serves to reinforce the negation of the central core of mainstream economics that economics started with Keynes - or at most with Adam Smith.

Section1. Introduction

Aristotle's works, like the Politics and Nicomachean Ethics, and Plato's works are centered on political and economic positions that Plato thought Socrates would support, based on his familiarity with the growing corruption that became endemic over time in Athens. Economic growth in Athens led to a decline of what had been a stable state. This stability was based on a large middle class. The goal of the citizen in such a state was to live a virtuous life, although Aristotle dropped the ball here with his defense of slavery. The virtuous life was not about the collection of money, wealth, and power. The optimal state was one based on the existence and continuity of a large, thriving middle class. Economic growth created changing conditions that could lead to the rise of either a dictatorship of the poor (democracy) or the dictatorship of the rich (oligarchy). The best form of government was the polity. This required, as a necessary condition, a very large, middle class with a small, lower class and a small, upper class.

Economic growth would, however, upset the balance that resulted from the large middle class as the beneficiaries of economic growth would find themselves to have more in common with the rich. Thus, both Plato and Aristotle had rather jaundiced views of economic growth as it relates to the stability of a state over time.

Aristotle's "Golden Mean" can thus be seen to have applications to both economics and politics that go far beyond personal, individual applications. Aristotle argues that the necessary condition for a stable state is that the state must have a very large middle class, a small lower class, and a small upper class. This has to apply both economically and politically. The middle class must control the majority of the economic resources and the majority of the economic power, as well as the majority of the political power. It is surprising that Aristotle overlooked that physical or wage slavery is an institution that will undermine the middle class, both politically and economically

This position is actually quite close to the viewpoint of the Ancient, Hebrew prophets of the Old Testament. The whole purpose of the concept of the seven-year jubilee and fifty-year jubilee is to redress and correct imbalances that start to diminish the middle class (See Gorga, 2015a, for a more detailed discussion).

Plato's New Republic was the result of his reaction to the death of Socrates. Socrates's conviction and death sentence resulted from actions carried out at the hands of a democracy, which took over from a plutocracy. Plato did not see any way of reconstituting the Athenian republic as it had once existed. Plato despaired of any public measures that might reinstitute in Athens the dominance of private virtue constraining or minimizing public corruption.

Therefore, he sought to create a NEW REPUBLIC, dominated by his virtuous philosopher - kings and warriors, who would be prevented from ever choosing to become corrupt because they would not be able to ever make decisions that lead to the accumulation of money, wealth, and riches. This is what Plato means as "private property." It is not a person's bed or eating utensils, etc. This new government would create a virtuous city state by walling off the rulers from any access to financial temptations at accumulation. There would be a large middle class, which he called a "Lower" class because he was concerned with the division of political power. In terms of the distribution of political power, they would be the lower class.

However, in terms of economic wealth, they would be middle class from an economic point of view, since they would be able to accumulate property, wealth, money, and riches. But they were forever cut off from using such wealth and power to dominate the state since they were banned from doing so because they could never attain any office. Plato solves the potential problem of political and economic corruption by preventing those having wealth from ever ruling. They are cut off from the political life of the state.

This paper will be structured in the following manner. Following this, Section 2 will cover Aristotle's critique of Plato's "division of labor" that ruled out the accumulation of property by the warriors and the philosopher - kings. However, this would also rule out any virtuous actions on their part at charity or what Adam Smith called beneficence. Section 3 will review and slightly amend Aristotle's analysis of the role of money in society. Section 4 will cover Adam Smith's realization that an independent Central Bank could be used to mitigate and control the corruption problem by essentially making loans only to the middle class (Smith's "sober people") and not to the upper class (prodigals, projectors, and imprudent risk takers). A properly functioning Central Bank could serve to show how Aristotle's jaundiced view of economic growth could be remedied so that the accumulation of wealth brought on by economic growth would benefit the lower and middle classes by being channeled into productive results, as opposed to the speculative outcomes so prevalent in the world since the late 1970's.

The central problem here would be if the upper income classes were able to get control of the Central Bank, so that it was no longer independent of the banking industry. This is precisely what Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas argued would happen and Smith disputed. This case would then result in the Central Bank being used by the upper classes to further their own future, primarily speculative, non-productive accumulation strategies, leading to the same problems recorded by Plato and Aristotle in Athens involving political strife and civil war. The result would be that economic growth would end up benefiting primarily the upper income classes and result in the decrease in the size and influence of the middle class and large increases in the lower classes. This is what has been occurring since 1975 in the USA. It also occurred in earlier years, such as 1920-1932. Smith's approach was largely in force from 1933-1976.

Since Adam Smith's recommendations have never been applied in an integrated fashion, in Sections 5 through 10, we call upon the recommendations of Concordian monetary policy to give greater specificity, generality, and rationality to the positions outlined by Adam Smith.

Concordian monetary policy is not only rooted in a detailed, comprehensive analysis of the economic process. Concordian monetary policy brings to complete the structure of the millenarian tradition of economic justice. Concordian monetary policy is also rooted in the practice of the American Colonists. Theoretically, Concordian monetary policy is not only rooted in a major pronouncement of the US Constitution at Article 1, Section 8; theoretically, Concordian monetary policy responds to a conclusion drawn by Oresme, the XIV century author of the first monetary treatise in the West. "Oresme argued that coinage belongs to the public, not to the prince, who has no right to vary arbitrarily the content or weight." (

Section 2. Smith's Beneficence and the Christian Charity of Augustine and Aquinas

We can sum up the general view of Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas and Adam (Smith) in the following words. If you want to do good, then you must be successful, but not corrupted by the process of the accumulation of wealth. If you are successful, then you will have the resources with which to help others.

This perspective led Aristotle to criticize Plato's position where the warriors and philosopher - kings would have no property (wealth, money). This would prevent them from engaging in virtuous acts of giving to the needy (Simpson,1998,1263b5):

"The first argument rested on love of self. The second one rested on love of others, which must be natural and good as love of self if human beings are naturally political. Hence, the pleasure associated with doing favors for others, and the private property this requires, must be natural and good too."

This would place constraints on the ability of the warriors and philosopher - kings to actually do virtuous acts while the "Lower Class" would be able to perform such virtuous acts, assuming that they had not allowed themselves to become corrupted during the process of generating their wealth, income, and money.

Note that Augustine does not differentiate between hoping to do good, but not being able to follow through due to a lack of the means to do so, as opposed to being able to actually do good (Augustine Enarrationes in Psalmos 131.19):

"God doth not heed the means a man hath, but the wish he hath, and judgeth him according to his wish for temporal blessings, not according to the means which it is not his lot to have."

The problem here, from Smith's view, is that Augustine is overlooking the virtue of prudence. Frugality and patience, over time, can help create the conditions that will result in the attainment of the means that will allow one to not only wish to do good, but to actually do good.

Section 3. Aristotle's Analysis of the Use of Money in the Context of Virtue Ethics

Aristotle's analysis is based on the assumption that the proper use of money is to be evaluated within a context of virtue ethics and not utilitarian ethics, especially the type of ethics promulgated by Jeremy Bentham (Benthamite Utilitarianism) which is the system of ethics and philosophy that has dominated the economics profession since Benjamin Franklin's and Smith's death in 1790. If the use of money does not promote ethical behavior, conduct and outcomes, then its use must be heavily circumscribed and heavily regulated by the state or independent Central Bank.

Aristotle' four categories used to describe the different uses of money are well known. We will make a small adjustment in one of them.

The first category is barter -

C-C ' (1)

The second category is money used as a medium of exchange to facilitate the production and trade of consumption and production goods and activities -

C-M-C' (2)

The third category is money used for commodity speculation -

M-C-M' (3a)

We will modify this to incorporate genuine shifts in the demand curve for a quality product resulting for increased desires by consumers for such a good as opposed to (3a), which deals with the deliberate attempt to manipulate the price of hoarded goods through the use of artificial supply restrictions, innuendo, half-truths, false information, etc. We will denote this case as -

M-C * -M' (3b)

The fourth category is -

M-M' (4)

No actual goods or services are created in category (4). The goal is monetary profit without the actual production of any good or service. Stock market speculation and currency speculation would be good examples of this, as well as the use of financial derivatives. Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Adam Smith, and J M Keynes condemned these specific misuses of money because they created speculative bubbles that would inevitably crash. The rich speculators, like the British East India Company and Goldman Sachs, used their political connections in order to be bailed out while the middle and lower classes were forced to absorb the social and economic costs.

Smith was, in the Wealth of Nations, specifically concerned with the Mississippi Bubble that was manipulated by John Law and Richard Cantillon early in the eighteen century in France.

This activity represents financial speculation or financialization. Categories 3 and 4 comprise uses of money that Smith identified with the pejorative terms projectors, prodigals, and imprudent risk takers.

Unfortunately, neither Aristotle nor Augustine nor Aquinas have any concrete suggestions on how to prevent such behavior other than suggesting that men should turn from their evil purposes in order to be good. However, this will require some sort of "stick" to enforce.

Section 4. Adam Smith and the Institution of Central Banking

Adam Smith, however, saw that society could prevent and constrain the misuse of money that took place in categories (3a) and (4), while promoting categories (2) and (3b), through the institution of Central Banking. The Central Bank would be able to control credit and loan arrangements so that the loans are made to those segments of society that actually produce real goods and services. Smith termed these citizens the "sober people." He contrasted the "sober people" with the "projectors, prodigals, and imprudent risk takers" like Cantillon and Law.

Smith's goal is to use the Central Bank to maintain a thriving, dominant middle class. He calls the middle class the "sober people." His first requirement is that the long run rate of interest must be permanently fixed and maintained a little bit above the prime rate of interest that the banks' best customers were charged to take out loans. His second requirement is that projectors, prodigals, and imprudent risk takers must be prevented from obtaining bank loans. Otherwise, the saving and demand deposit accounts of the bank's depositors will be "wasted and destroyed." Smith's third requirement is that money and banking policy must concentrate on determining who is getting the bank loans and what purpose are the bank loans being used for.

Smith would view current American monetary policy as fatally flawed, since the Geithner's, Bernanke's, Rubin's, Summer's, Paulsen's and Lew's would be judged to be the twentieth and twenty-first century equivalents of the Cantillon's, Law's, and Andrew Dexter, Jr.'s.

Thus, the Central Bank can guide economic growth into areas involved in the production of consumption and investment goods where (2) is the general case. Of course, if the Cantillons and Laws are able to get control of the Central Bank, catastrophic depressions will be the result.

Note that the Central Bank can prevent the hoarding of money by simply keeping it out of the hands of the potential hoarders and speculators, like the British East India Company, Cantillons, and Laws.

Smith's approach would reward the prudence and patience of the middle class by granting them access to sufficient credit and bank loans to expand their productive businesses, thereby expanding employment for the lower class.

Smith would argue that no other economic controls are necessary except for the provision of education, which he correctly viewed as a necessity and not a luxury.

Concordian monetary policy (Gorga, 2015b) attempts to reach the same three goals that Adam Smith proposed and adds greater specificity, generality, and rationality to the discussion of the problem at hand.

Section 5. The Greater Specificity of Concordian Monetary Policy

First Goal. Adam Smith suggested that the Central Bank would be able to control credit and loan arrangements so that the loans are made to those segments of society that actually produce real goods and services. Concordian monetary policy suggests that this goal can be reached directly by providing credit, not to a specific class of people, but to specific business operations: those operations that create real wealth - as distinguished from financial operations and hoarding that shuffles ownership rights. This is a major implicit requirement for making loans that follows from the public policies based on Concordian economics. Purchasing land and letting it lay fallow is hoarding. Capping oil wells is hoarding. Purchasing gold and other minerals can be hoarding. Hoarding of cash is, of course, hoarding (see Gorga, 2013).

Second Goal. Adam Smith suggested that the long run rate of interest must be permanently fixed. Concordian monetary policy suggests that Central Bank loans be issued at cost.

Third Goal. Adam Smith suggested that banking policy must be concentrated on determining who is getting the bank loans. Concordian monetary policy suggest that Central Bank loans be made available to all qualified citizens of the country; the main qualification is reasonable assurance of repayment of the loan.

Section 6. The Greater Generality of Concordian Monetary Policy

First Goal. That the Central Bank should make loans to those segments of society that actually produce real goods and services, as suggested by Adam Smith, is not a general requirement as indicated by the possibility of those segments of society changing their minds and mores over time. The requirement of Concordian economics that business operations create real wealth is a general and constant classification.

Second Goal. Adam Smith suggested that that the long run rate of interest must be permanently fixed. But at what level? And is the permanence of the level something that is supposed to last forever, even when conditions arise that call for a determinate change in that rate? Concordian monetary policy suggests that Central Bank loans be issued at cost: This is a general principle that never changes; yet, it is imbued with an inherent flexibility, because the cost of the loan will change when specific costs of bank operations should change.

Third Goal. Calling for "who" is getting a loan is inherently discriminatory; this is a condition that cannot be determined ahead of time. Besides, a loan is always issued to a person. What guidance does this requirement offer to the authorities? That loans should be issued to all qualified citizens - or better, inhabitants - as required by Concordian monetary policy is a most general principle.

Section 7. The Greater Rationality of Concordian Economics

Adam Smith's conditions for issuing Central Bank loans are open to attack because he does not offer any rational justification for his recommendations. His recommendation seems to be based on little more than a personal preference, which cannot be thoroughly justified; and indeed, no serious effort has ever been made to implement those recommendations during the 240 years since their enunciation.

The recommendations offered by Concordian economics are based on:

  1. A rational restructuring of mainstream economics (Gorga, 2002 and 2009a);
  2. A completion of the millennial structure of economic justice (Gorga, 1999); and then,
  3. An application of the most important economic right and responsibility that serves to implement the urgings of economic justice (Gorga, 2009b).

1. Rational Re-Structure of Mainstream Economics

Adam Smith is considered the father of mainstream economics; yet, a brief recourse to history shows that economic theory has been in a state of crisis since the publication of his Wealth of Nations in 1776. Classical economics was soon followed by neo-classical economics and the marginalist revolution and the economics of Keynes and Keynesian economics and postKeynesian economics and monetarism and neo-neo-classical economics and real business cycle theory and behaviorism - let alone Marxist economics or Austrian economics or Georgist economics or Kelsonian economics; indeed, let alone the splinter programs of research within each major school of economic thought.

These efforts are not accretions to basic scientific knowledge; they are revolutionary attempts to start the economic discourse anew over again and again. They are failed attempts to describe the mechanics of the economic process.

As Philip Pilkington (2014) has pointed out:

"Mainstream economics moves forward not through logical development and integration, but through forgetting."

The fundamental reason for this continuing state of crisis can be found through an in-depth analysis of the structure of mainstream economics. The structure disobeys all principles of logic; the structure is based on a set of "balancing contradictions" (Gorga, 2002 and 2009, pp. 49-50).

The structure of Concordian economics is built on "relentless" (Davidson, 2003) respect for the principles of logic and rationally integrates the three levels of economics - theory, policy, and practice - into one organized unit.

The following figure presents the main elements of the economic process and how they relate to each other:


Two observations should suffice. A cycle of the economic process is completed when all the production of the accounting period passes from producers to consumers and money passes from consumers to producers. For the exchange to occur, both sets of agents must be legal owners of what they exchange. In the economic process, there are always three elements: real goods, money, and ownership rights, which, for instance, in the case of a purchase and sale of a chocolate bar, is indicated by the sales slip.

And there is another major implicit logical benefit at the core of Concordian economics. The quagmire represented by the assumed equality of saving to investment is transformed into the wholly logical, understandable, and explainable relation of complementarity between hoarding and investment. This relationship, and some of the consequences that flow from it, are made clear when cast into a Lorenz diagram. In this fashion:


With more hoarding, there is clearly less growth and more poverty. More inflation results from more money put in circulation by hoarding wealth. And no correspondent increase in real wealth takes place.

2. Completion of the Millennial Structure of Economic Justice

There are various uses to which a theory can be put; one immediate use of Concordian economics has been the formulation of an appropriate economic policy. As it can be seen from the following figure, this search has led to a near-automatic completion of the millennial structure of economic justice:


Figure 3 offers a one-to-one correspondence between economic theory and policy. In short form, this figure can be read as follows: The right to participate in the process of production of wealth (Participative Justice) is essential, because it alone offers a reasonable assurance to receive a fair share of the wealth created (Distributive Justice); only then can one also have the means to assure a relation of equivalence between what one gives and receives (Commutative Justice).

3. Implementation of One Important Set of Economic Rights and Responsibilities

Concordian monetary policy stems directly from the application of an important economic right and responsibility; the right of access to national credit, with the responsibility to repay the loan thus obtained. (In correspondence with each factor of production, with capital distinguished between financial capital and real capital, there are four such economic rights and responsibilities in Concordian economics.) In a monetary system, access to national credit is not only essential to participate in the economic life; it is a natural right, because the value of money is not created by bankers, but by the blood, sweat and tears of all inhabitants - and the person without money is thrown into the gutter.

In the United States, this right belongs to the people in a very particular way: The American Colonists established it in a very natural and organic way in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1690. When the British Crown, acting at the behest of the British East India Company, tried to deprive them of this right, they waged a War of Independence and won it. Thanks to the efforts and understanding of Benjamin Franklin, this right is inscribed in the very first article of the United States Constitution.

To gather the full importance of this right, it might be useful to enter a brief digression into culture and history. Why did not one of the great thinkers we have examined so far, and these are the major thinkers of all ages, unearth such an important right as the right of access to national credit? Why did Adam Smith not enunciate it clearly?

Section 8. Some Cultural Consequences of Slavery

Since it was part of the common background of all our authors, we should like to emphasize two cultural consequences of slavery. There were two heavy penalties that cultures that tolerated slavery suffered from. Elsewhere (Gorga, 2014), we have observed that, while all our writers shared an understanding of economic justice, and, with greater or lesser enthusiasm, tried to follow its dictates, as a cultural effect none of them could bring the structure of economic justice to its logical conclusion. Because of slavery, none of them could see the need for the addition of participative justice to complete the structure of economic justice, which remained forever focused on distributive and commutative justice. Since slaves were the workers, slaves could not be conceived as having any right to participate in the economic process.

That was a heavy loss to each one of our authors personally (not unjustly, one can attribute to them a lack of moral integrity) and to society as well, because as William Gissy (2013) has pointed out, one can use participative justice to build a strong anti-trust policy. We have briefly seen that participative justice is also essential for a thorough application of economic justice - and we should never forget that justice is the harbinger of peace.

Slavery also had another subtle, deleterious effect on the mind. Even though our thinkers undoubtedly were the most accomplished human beings of their respective ages, they were automatically compelled to split society into classes. This misconception was not only the seed of everlasting social strife. It was also the source of a faulty sociological construction.

Human beings were encased into castes; they could not be autonomous human beings. Slavery prevented each one of our giant thinkers from seeing that people do not act as a (social) class. Mimicry might not grant us absolute freedom, but we certainly act as individual human beings. We have also briefly seen that the tripartite division of society into the higher, middle, and lower class did much damage to their clarity of mind.

Section 9. A Discontinuity in the Conception of the Creation of Money

Clearly, we see a continuous link between our ancient thinkers to the modern European conception as well as current American practice concerning the creation of money: The Sovereign has the right to create money - and the Sovereign can pass it along to the Bankers.

Yet, there is a blip in history in which such a conception was challenged. The American Colonists believed that they, as sovereign human beings, had such a right. They asserted this right at first in 1690, under the aegis of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. They so believed in the importance of this right that they, together with all other Colonists - under the subtle guidance by Benjamin Franklin - ultimately fought a war, the American War of Independence, to preserve such a right. Benjamin Franklin, as a merely 23 years old lad, put it in writing - first in his magisterial essay of 1729 titled "The Nature and Necessity of a Paper-Currency." Then he fomented the American Revolution as no other person did. And then he was so influential that such a right was written in the First Article of the US Constitution, Section 8. (The evening before the adoption of the Constitution in Philadelphia, in 1787, delegates from various colonies spent time in company of Franklin).

Stated otherwise, the focus of attention should fall especially on this type of statement: The American Revolution was fought, not so much to gain "No Taxation Without Representation," as to preserve the right of our Colonial Governments to coin our own money. We won the war; thus, we preserved this right; but the day after we lost it - when Hamilton, perhaps unaware, patterned the Bank of America after the Bank of England.

That is where we stand today: As William Jennings Bryan warned us, we either regain our right to coin our own money (and to distribute it fairly), or we only make the rich richer, until they collapse, for lack of sufficient "effective" demand. In the process, no other reform no matter its promises, will have any lasting and meaningful effect. As Baron Rothschild well put it, "Allow me to control the currency of a nation and I care not who makes its laws."

Section 10. Oresme: The Lost Link

Even though it is unlikely that the American Colonists ever heard of Oresme, the Bishop of Lisieux, he is the lost link between Concordian monetary policy and the monetary policy practiced by the American Colonists.

He is remembered today for writing the first modern treatise in monetary theory and especially for being the first formulator of Gresham's Law, bad money casts good money out of circulation. Good money is hoarded. Yet, as a symptomatic treatment of the most important issue in the whole monetary universe, not even Irving Fisher (1911, Chapter 7, paras 2 and 3) reported what Oresme stated:

" ... coinage belongs to the public, not to the prince, who has no right to vary arbitrarily the content or weight."

This principle is the central tenet of Concordian monetary policy.

Section 11. Conclusion

Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas took a jaundiced view toward accumulation and economic growth because the dynamics involved in the process of economic growth quickly lead to speculative practices that severely damaged the social fabric of society. The result would be a severe decrease in the size of the middle class and an abrupt rise in the lower class. This is, of course, a recipe for civil war and revolution.

Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas advised that the maintenance of a stationary, static state would maintain the relative balance of political and economic power so that the middle class would continue to prosper.

Adam Smith believed that there was another path that would maintain the dominance of the "sober" people while allowing for the accumulation of wealth through economic growth. Adam Smith thought that there was a way of using economic growth to maintain a large, dominant middle class. Macroscopically, the lower and middle classes would be benefited by a Central Bank, whose guiding principle was that economic growth had to be targeted to avoid the inherent dangers of bank financed speculation, which benefited only the upper class and hurt the lower and middle classes.

The virtue of prudence would manifest itself and allow many citizens to go beyond wishing to help other citizens. They would be able to actually become virtuous because they would be able to actually help.

The moral and economic enemy for Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas was the greed, selfishness, and exploitation wrought by what later was formalized by Jeremy Bentham as Benthamite Utilitarianism. Adam Smith completely rejected any role for utilitarianism in both the Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments. The severe confusion concerning Smith's statement about the brewer, baker, and blacksmith being patient, careful, and prudent, in the manner in which they ran their businesses so that they accumulated surplus funds to safeguard their own families, has been confused with utilitarianism greed and selfish egoism. Smith completely rejected any type or sort of Utilitarianism in his life.

Concordian economics picks up the same concerns and aspirations as those of Adan Smith and, through an integration of theory, policy, and practice offers a detailed, comprehensive program of action - only in part observed above - to translate those ideals from the abstract realm of thought into living and vital every day's life.

Perhaps, the greatest import of Concordian economic policy is that, if in place in time, the consequences of a crash in the financialization sector over the real sector of the economy will be mitigated to an enormous extent.

Intellectually, this paper serves to reinforce the negation of the central core of mainstream economics that started with Keynes - or at most with Adam Smith. Put another way, intellectually this paper negates the validity of the central structure of mainstream economics, its atomism and determinism, as emphasized by many writers, but most consistently and effectively by Edward Fallbrook and the World Economic Association.


Aquinas, Thomas. (2010). Summa Theologica (Complete and Unabridged). Coyote Canyon Press.

Aristotle. (1999:2nd ed). Nicomachean Ethics (Introduction and Translation by Terence Irwin). Hackett Publishing Company.

Aristotle. (1998). Politics. (Introduction and Translation by C.D. C. Reeve). Hackett Publishing Company.

Davidson, Paul. (2003). A Review of The Economic Process: An Instantaneous Non-Newtonian Picture. By Carmine Gorga. Lanham, MD, and Oxford: University Press of America, 2002. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XLI (December 2003), pp. 1284-1285

Deane, Herbert A. (1963). The Social and Political Ideas of Saint Augustine (New York: Columbia University Press).

Fisher, Irving. (1911). The Purchasing Power of Money. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Gissy, William. (2013). "Do Merger Restrictions Promote Social Development?" International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 3 No. 19: 150-59.

Gorga, Carmine. (1999). "Toward the Definition of Economic Rights," The Journal of Markets and Morality, Spring 1999, II (1) 88-101. Reprinted with a new introduction and postscript at Mother Pelican, Vol. 10, No. 12, December 2014.

Gorga, Carmine. (2002, 2009a, and 2017). The Economic Process: An Instantaneous Non-Newtonian Picture. Lanham, Md. and Oxford: University Press of America, 2009, expanded softcover edition.

Gorga, Carmine. (2009b). "Concordian Economics: Tools to Return Relevance to Economics," Forum for Social Economics, vol. 38, issue 1, pages 53-69

Gorga, Carmine. (2013). "A Three-Part Proposal for Investing Hoarded Cash," The Catholic Social Science Review, 18: 261 - 263

Gorga, Carmine. (2015a). "Economics of Morality: Economics of Moses, Economics of Jesus." Mother Pelican, Vol. 11, No. 4.

Gorga, Carmine. (2015b). "The World of Economics Since 2008." Mother Pelican, Vol. 11, No. 9

MacQueen, D. J. (1972). "Saint Augustine's Concept of Property Ownership," Recherches Augustiniennes VIII.

Oresme, Nicole. (2017). Quoted in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Pilkington, Philip. (2014). "Authoritative Arguments in Economics", Econintersect Blog, 9 November 2014.

Simpson, Peter. (1997). The Politics of Aristotle, trans. Peter Simpson, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

Simpson, Peter. (1998). A Philosophical Commentary on the "Politics" of Aristotle (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press).

Smith, Adam. (1759; 6th ed., 1790). The Theory of Moral Sentiments. New York: Forgotten Books, 2015.

Smith, Adam. (1776). The Wealth of Nations. Modern (Cannan) Library Edition with the fore ward by Max Lerner. N.Y., N.Y.

Tkacz, Michael and Kries, Douglas. (1994). Augustine: Political Writings (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.).

NOTE: This paper was published by Econintersect on February 17, 2019, with the list of authors inverted.


Michael E. Brady is a Lecturer, College of Business Administration and Public Policy, Department of Operations Management, California State University, Dominguez Hills, California.

Carmine Gorga is a former Fulbright scholar and the recipient of a Council of Europe Scholarship for his dissertation on "The Political Thought of Louis D. Brandeis." With a book titled The Economic Process and a series of papers, Dr. Gorga has transformed the linear world of economics into a relational discipline in which everything is related to everything else, This characteristic of Concordian economics has been recognized by JEL in December 2017 (p. 1642). He was assisted for 27 years by Professor Franco Modigliani, a Nobel laureate in economics at MIT. For a full understanding of Concordian economics, Gorga has gradually realized that we need to go beyond Individualism and Collectivism, toward Somism (men and women in the social context)—see—and then we need to pass from Rationalism to Relationalism: see See also Wikipedia and Google Scholar.

"When small men begin to cast big shadows,
it means that the sun is about to set."

— Lin Yutang (1895-1976)


Write to the Editor
Send email to Subscribe
Send email to Unsubscribe
Link to the Google Groups Website
Link to the PelicanWeb Home Page

Creative Commons License
ISSN 2165-9672

Page 4      



Subscribe to the
Mother Pelican Journal
via the Solidarity-Sustainability Group

Enter your email address: