Thank you for the detailed reply, it's always useful to have a debate of this kind. I can see where you come from and this reply you've just left helps to integrate my understanding of your original post. I can also see where we might disagree. Your point on ethics is very interesting for example: > This means before any macro, there are morals. Meaning in order to understand the whole of economics we start from the ethics. I have no direct knowledge of Aristotelian thought, so I might not grasp this statement in full, and when I think of economics I find the Austrian school to be the most "objective". This is what Rothbard states at the end of "Man, Economy, and State", which directly contradicts the point on ethics: > The major function of praxeology—of economics—is to bring to the world the knowledge of these indirect, these hidden, consequences of the different forms of human action. > Praxeology cannot, by itself, pass ethical judgment or make policy decisions. > ... praxeology retires from the scene; and it is up to the citizen—the ethicist—to choose his political course according to the values that he holds dear I'm informed by this view when I think about money, so in my understanding money emerges naturally in a free market and, absent coercive action by any group of individuals, it evolves to serve the purposes of means of exchange, unit of account, and store of value. What emerges on the free market as money cannot in my opinion therefore be placed in the same category as what as been co-opted by the government and the banking system into a tool of wealth extraction. These are not the same thing anymore, even though they share the same origin. Would you agree that there is distinction here?