Why the Theory of Money and Credit—and the Ontology of Money—Are Central to the Work of G&A

I. G&A Is Not a Price-Taker Institution

Gillory & Associates is not a conventional asset manager, wealth manager, or advisory firm that passively accepts market prices as “data.” G&A operates as a merchant bank, allocating internal capital across macro, private, strategic, and institutional domains.

This distinction is decisive.

Price-taking firms can afford to treat money as:

• A unit of account

• A neutral medium

• A liquidity variable

G&A cannot.

G&A must understand why prices exist, when they lie, and how monetary regimes deform them. That requires a rigorous theory of money and credit grounded in ontology, not statistics.

II. Money Is the Operating System of All G&A Activities

Every activity undertaken by G&A presupposes a theory of money—whether acknowledged or not.

When G&A:

• Allocates capital across asset classes

• Evaluates leverage and balance-sheet risk

• Structures private investment partnerships

• Prices risk premia

• Assesses macro regimes

• Judges duration, convexity, and optionality

…it is implicitly making claims about what money is, how it functions, and how it behaves under institutional stress.

Without an explicit ontology of money, these claims remain:

• Implicit

• Incoherent

• Vulnerable to regime shifts

A firm that does not define money ontologically is exposed to monetary illusion.

III. Credit Is the Transmission Mechanism of Systemic Risk

Most financial crises do not originate in asset markets. They originate in credit architecture.

Understanding credit as:

• A contractual relation

• An intertemporal command over resources

• An institutional privilege

allows G&A to see risks before they appear in prices.

Mainstream finance treats credit as:

• A funding variable

• A yield spread

• A balance-sheet metric

Praxeogenic theory treats credit as:

• A structural force shaping time horizons and capital allocation

For G&A, this distinction is existential. A merchant bank must identify where credit expansion is synthetic rather than funded, because that is where:

• Malinvestment accumulates

• Fragility concentrates

• Forced liquidation eventually occurs

IV. Ontology Determines Risk Reality

Risk is not purely probabilistic. It is ontological.

If money is treated as:

• A neutral numéraire → risk appears low

• A policy tool → risk appears manageable

• A statistical aggregate → risk appears modellable

But if money is understood as:

• A coordination device

• A time-binding institution

• An expectation-dependent social reality

Then risk is seen as:

• Regime-dependent

• Institutional

• Discontinuous

G&A’s advantage lies precisely here: recognizing when the monetary system itself is becoming ontologically unstable, not merely volatile.

V. Macro Is Not Data—It Is Monetary Architecture

G&A’s macro work is not about forecasting CPI prints or central-bank press conferences. It is about diagnosing the structure of the monetary regime.

The ontology of money explains:

• Why liquidity injections distort capital structures

• Why interest rates lose informational content

• Why volatility becomes endogenous

• Why correlations converge under stress

Without this foundation, macro becomes narrative trading.

With it, macro becomes structural diagnosis.

VI. Capital Allocation Is an Intertemporal Judgment

Every capital allocation decision is a judgment about time.

Money and credit are the mechanisms through which time enters economic calculation.

By grounding money ontologically, G&A can:

• Distinguish real yield from nominal illusion

• Separate return on capital from return of capital

• Price duration risk correctly across regimes

• Evaluate whether growth is genuine or credit-induced

This is especially critical for:

• Long-duration assets

• Illiquid private investments

• Structured credit

• Real assets and development projects

VII. Institutional Design Requires Monetary Realism

G&A is not merely investing—it is building institutions, including:

• Private investment partnerships

• Advisory structures

• Capital vehicles

• Governance frameworks

Institutions fail when they assume:

• Stable money

• Predictable liquidity

• Continuous markets

A praxeogenic theory of money enables G&A to design structures that are:

• Resilient to monetary tightening

• Robust under credit contraction

• Adaptive to regime change

This is a competitive advantage unavailable to firms operating on textbook assumptions.

VIII. Strategy Requires Knowing When Money Lies

Markets often price assets correctly relative to distorted money.

The critical question is not:

“Is this asset cheap or expensive?”

But:

“Is money currently telling the truth?”

Understanding the ontology of money allows G&A to:

• Identify false price signals

• Recognize policy-induced mispricing

• Position defensively before consensus breaks

This is how capital is preserved while others chase returns.

IX. G&A’s Intellectual Edge Is Not Optional—It Is Structural

Praxeogenic Economics is not branding. It is infrastructure.

The Theory of Money and Credit and the Ontology of Money provide:

• A unified framework for macro, micro, and institutional analysis

• A coherent philosophy of capital allocation

• A defensible rationale for contrarian positioning

They explain why G&A does not rely on:

• DSGE models

• Efficient market assumptions

• Mechanical risk metrics

And why G&A survives regime shifts that destroy others.

X. Conclusion: Why This Matters

Money is not neutral.

Credit is not benign.

Institutions are not passive.

For Gillory & Associates, understanding what money is and how credit reshapes time and action is not academic—it is the difference between:

• Riding cycles and being crushed by them

• Managing risk and misunderstanding it

• Allocating capital and misallocating it

The Theory of Money and Credit and the Ontology of Money are therefore not peripheral to G&A’s work.

They are the foundation of it.