Giacinto Auriti is often mentioned when people discuss monetary sovereignty, the value of money and the relationship between money and citizens. His ideas generated a strong debate because he presented money not only as a technical instrument, but also as a legal, social and political fact.
Auriti spoke about the “induced value” of money. In simple terms, he argued that money has value because a community accepts it, recognises it and uses it in exchanges. This perspective raises an important question: if value comes from social acceptance, who should be considered the real owner of that value?
The historical relationship between money and gold is complex. In some periods, currencies were linked directly or indirectly to precious metals. Later, especially after the end of the Bretton Woods system, money became increasingly fiduciary: it does not usually represent a fixed amount of gold, but is accepted because institutions, states and economic systems recognise it.
In Italy, the lira belonged to a monetary history different from today’s euro. The transition to the euro simplified many exchanges but also shifted monetary policy to a European level. This changed the way citizens, states and central banks relate to currency.
Studying Auriti does not mean accepting every thesis as absolute truth. It means asking useful questions: who creates money? Where does its value come from? What is the relationship between money, debt, the state and citizens?
These are complex questions, but they are important. Understanding money means understanding a fundamental part of modern society.