Why Schmitt’s Argument Deserves Serious Examination | Public Paper Page

<aside> 🌐

Parent: Sequential Provenance Comparison (SPC) | Public Page ｜ 日本語：シュミットの議論を真剣に検討すべき理由｜公開論文ページ

</aside>

<aside> 🌌

Bringing Schmitt’s Copernican turn into the world as a testable question.

Money is understood not as a deposit balance, but as a flow arising at the instant of payment. The basis of observation shifts from balances to payments, from amounts to formation, and from ownership to exchange. This paper tests the difference disclosed by that turn from outside Schmittian theory, using ordinary accounting and SPC.

</aside>

<aside> 📄

Version: 1.3 (September 24, 2026) ｜ Status: Working Paper / pre-peer-review preprint Author: nyun (Independent Researcher) ｜ DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22926504

</aside>

The Paper in 30 Seconds

Question: If wages and firm-acquired capital goods are both recorded as 20 and every journal entry is valid, must consumption goods be saleable to the worker?
Existence result: Path A shows that feasibility under ordinary accounting is compatible with saleable consumption-goods inventory $C_H=0$ at the focal point.
Identification result: Saleable inventory $C_H$ and the linkage of new credit to focal wages $D_W$ distinguish the paper’s four paths A–D.
Boundary with theory: Ordinary accounting establishes constructibility and path differences. Comparison with capital malformation and malignant inflation requires further conditions.

<aside> 🔍

Central result

In Path A, focal wages of 20 are paid, the firm acquires capital goods with a production cost of 20, and the bank and firm balance sheets remain consistent. Yet immediately after the focal event, preserved consumption-goods inventory saleable to the worker is zero.

Balanced accounts do not by themselves establish the corresponding exchange relation.

</aside>

The Four Paths

Path	$C_H$	$D_W$	Role
A	0	0	Central existence witness without saleable consumption goods
B	20	0	Reference path that sells preserved goods to the worker
C	0	20	New-credit contrast sharing A’s prehistory
D	20	20	Supplemental Version 1.3 path sharing B’s prehistory

Under $\Omega_0=(W,K_F,A_F)$, all four paths appear identical. Adding $C_H$ separates A/C from B/D; adding $D_W$ distinguishes the four paths. B and D return to the same endpoint balance sheet but retain different financing provenance for the focal wages.

Why It Matters

Schmitt’s turn asks whether the identity of an economic process may be judged from terminal amounts alone. When income is formed, where is the product available in exchange for that income? To which human beings do the benefit, use, and decision-making authority associated with firm-acquired productive capacity ultimately connect?

The paper does not simply declare that “Schmitt is correct.” If Schmitt’s viewpoint captures an important relation, it should predict a configuration constructible within conventional accounting yet obscured when observation is confined to balances and aggregates. This paper constructs that configuration.

<aside> 🧭

Order of argument Theory-guided construction prediction → existence test under ordinary accounting → provenance identification through SPC → conditional comparison with Schmittian monetary theory

</aside>

Method, theoretical comparison, and limits

Public Files

English paper, Version 1.3 (27 pages)

English replication workbook, Version 1.3