MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417239877 · doi:10.1080/09538259.2025.2593456

The Perverse Evolution of Money: Shadow Banking, Wealth Accumulation and the Real Economy

2025· article· en· W4417239877 on OpenAlexaff
Hassan Bougrine

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Political Economy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic theories and models
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShadow (psychology)Real economyReal interest rateReal wagesProduction (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Money has always had a public character in the sense that it is meant to serve the needs of the community, ranging from the acquisition of necessities to the accumulation of wealth. Access to goods, services, and assets requires money as a publicly recognized means of payment, carrying value and guaranteeing purchasing power. A central question in monetary economics is why there is not enough money to satisfy all societal needs. This paper examines the structural reasons limiting the supply and availability of money, arguing that money creation depends on the organizing principles of the socio-economic system. Historically, whether communal or state-sanctioned, money originates as debt, requiring collective or state validation to acquire value. This validation inherently depends on collateral, material or otherwise — thus embedding scarcity into the monetary system right from the start. Today, as Keynes (1936) observed, this scarcity benefits the capitalists and ‘functionless investors,' who prefer maintaining the economy below full employment. This dynamic is exacerbated in the era of shadow banking. The paper attempts to set the stage for proposals that could answer Keynes's (1936, p. 376) call for ‘an increase in the volume of capital [money] until it ceases to be scarce’.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Political EconomySame topicEconomic theories and modelsFrench-language works237,207