Initial consideration

Reinterpretations on the topic of the importance of money and its functional components, and ultimately to what extent money is important, can be found in the extensive literature of the last 50 years. What earlier research points to is certainly all that quantitatively represents the scope of various macroeconomic models. However, considering that they also respect the financial element in their structures, the whole stream of financial theorists who systematically analyzed the financial elements in the mentioned models also inevitably differentiated itself. This is how monetarism was once established and conceptualized, which marked several decades in financial theory and gave a practical tone even to today's economic practice.

The value of such research and the attitudes inherent in it caused wider scientific polemics and comparative analyzes with previously identified tendencies in the management of economic policy, primarily with Keynesianism. Significant differences certainly existed and are still very present today with subtle overlaps to the extent that the "core" of individual theoretical elaborations is very difficult to determine from the aspect of originality. But in addition, these intertwinings and a kind of scientific fashion in certain periods provided, and still provide, a very inspiring field for the further actualization of such polemics until today, when it is necessary to give a more concrete answer to global events.

Therefore, if we start from the idea of classifying and fragmenting established doctorates with the aim of investigating the "absolute truth", we come to a gap in which, according to Ristić and Živković (1998), no doctrine is completely monolithic, but that all research, recorded and published over time, actually represent " a set of multiplied analyzes of monetarist models, which imply different consequences in the process of conducting economic policy in accordance with the evolution of monetarist ideas in almost all macroeconomic models." " (Ristić, Živković, 1998, p. 134.)

In the specific case of monetarism, the mentioned authors point out that monetaism in its original form is not a homogenous block with inherent firm positions of certain theorists, but a school with converging and diverging positions, basically the same theorists who have a common foundation. The common foundation of all monetarist theoretical currents is reflected in the fact that the monetary factor has a determining and determining influence on development, that the national income exclusively depends on the variations of the monetary mass and that the private sector is essentially stable. As for cycles at the level of economic movements, they result exclusively under the influence of the growth of the monetary mass and that in the long term the relevant connection between inflation and unemployment is lost. (Bilghi, 2001)

The thesis that inflation tends to be anticipated and does not affect the level of unemployment under the assumption of natural employment arises under the common umbrella. It can be concluded that the apostrophization of natural employment correlates with the previously problematized attitude of monetarists in general. (Ghatak, 1995; Ristić, 2020)

All of the above portrays the key philosophy of monetarism in all its varieties, which correspond directly to the various implications of economic policy. Various implications concern the economic environment in which the theoretical approaches were created, as well as the policies of the countries that were consumers of such approaches, globally, and over time.

If we wanted to specify the key premises of monetarism, it would be that inflation exclusively results from the uncontrolled expansion of the money supply and that

it can only be controlled by raising interest rates, making money lending more difficult, and managing cuts. Hence, today there is a current controversy about raising the reference interest rate, which is the key anchor of the monetarist approach on which the central banking of the world "rests".

On the other hand, if we were to look back at the opponent's doctrine, the key general point of fiscalism is actually the determination of the value of money, from which they sharply opposed monetarist views through theoretical discussions, thereby problematizing the importance of the monetary mass and its movement.

In different epochs in the literature, there is a kind of reconciliation of polarizing attitudes into the attitude "money is important" or Friedman's famous remark "now we are all Keynesians". (Živković, Ristić, 2020)

Different understandings of the determinants of the value of money led monetarists and fiscalists in the direction of giving different importance to the money supply, primarily in the difference between the nominal and real money supply and then around the problem of interest determination.

Income theorists or fiscalists in different analyzes do not differentiate between nominal and real interest rates, because they consider interest as a monetary phenomenon, while on the other hand theorists of the non-netarian point of view differentiate between nominal and real interest rates because they relate the market interest rate to changes in the level price and that in this connection the real interest rate is explained by all current non-monetary factors. (Ristic, Živković, 1998)

The fact is that the effect of real money is empirically weak according to the Keynesians, which we identify by reviewing the literature, and that the idea is that monetary policy had a weak impact on national income, considering that its effects come mainly through variations in the interest rate and the level of employment, indicates that at this point it is necessary to reinterpret the conflicting points of view and strongholds in the comparative analysis of fiscalists and monetarists in order to practically approach the goal of this work, which is to figure out the possible outcomes of today's global monetary and fiscal policy in the conditions of current tendencies conditioned by the post-covid and geopolitical vulnerability imposed rar in Ukraine and in this connection with essential "polyeconomic" treatment of money.

Monetarist-Keynesian conflict and attempt to establish diversification of financial theory

By analyzing the available literature that deals with econometric measurements of the effects of money on the real sector, in the period from 1960 onwards, we find that theorists generally apostrophize that there is a close connection between reserves and the monetary stock, and that the rule of constant growth of the money supply represents an essential instrument of monetary policy (Ilić et al., 2022), on the other hand, given that the effect of money on nominal income refers to real income and not to the price component, a Keynesian alternative is theoretically constituted in the position of monetarism (Savić & Boni ć, 2022). The analysis of earlier research imposes the need to point out that, contrary to that, the effects of the fiscal impulse on real production are barely more significant than on the price level and that the effects of changes in the money supply affect real production rather than the price level. (Hetyel, 2017)

This is the moment of diversification of financial theory, which then "travels" through time and converges or diverges to one or another doctorate in different interpretations and strongholds. It is interesting to point out that the potential synthesis of monetarism and fiscalism was completely absent, although at some point it seemed so (Klincov et al., 2022).

All the varieties of doctrine recognized by the literature also show the tendency of individual theoreticians to "invent" a new theory, which also did not result in the same result because they are all based on the same indicators in different combinations.

of supply economics is inherent, which is based on lowering taxes or a tax reduction program, limiting the budget deficit and reducing the interest rate, and all in function of eliminating recession trends and acceleration of economic growth (Mihajlović et al., 2022).

However, the analyzes that denied the relationship between tax reduction, economic growth, increase in fiscal revenues and budget deficit reduction turned into the relationship between tax reduction, budget deficit growth, interest rate growth, economic crisis and recession, and indicated the existence of a structural contradiction of the monetarist approach in financial theory (Ilić & Tasić, 2021).

In order to systematize the contradictions, we will refer to the following list: (Groenwegen, 2003; Ristić, 2020)

1.           monetarist policy primarily affects employees before it has an impact on the general level of prices and wages.

2.           the combination of restrictive monetary policy and expansive budget deficit financing affects the increase in the interest rate, which reduces investment activities with a clear tendency towards recession.

3.           firm control of monetary growth through bank reserve management policies outlines the field for liberal interest behavior and consequently the indifference that this maneuver has in international economic and financial relations.

4.           monetary policy that aims to reduce or to a certain extent neutralize inflationary tendencies conditions a more rigid employment climate, which consequently generates recessionary economic tendencies and increases the budget deficit.

5.           monetarists are of the opinion that any reduction in the tax rate in the context of a recession does not necessarily lead to a budget deficit, as a generator of inflation as well as an additional increase in the interest rate and crowding out investments in favor of consumption, but they express doubt about all the analyzes and optimistic predications of those theorists who talk about coexistence inflation and economic growth.

6.           monetarists claim that the needs of the treasury in the form of loans significantly indicate the sensitivity of the financial sector.

7.           the monetarist position is that changes in the money supply are the dominant determinant of changes in monetary income.

All of the above to a certain extent indicates the presence of "weak points" of the monetarist doctorate, which opened up the field of further polemics and theoretical discussions.

Thus, for example, according to the fiscalists, as opposed to the views of the monetarists, according to research by Ristić, Živković (1998) and Ristić (2020), the fact that the dominant effect of money depends on the evaluation of the alternatives between inflation and unemployment is persistently neglected. According to Groenwegena (2003), certain statistical regularities are observed which have been identified in the relationship between unemployment and the rate of inflation did not hold even in cases when the economic policy tried to ensure and ensure lower unemployment with the predicted increase in inflation. (Groenwegeni, 2003).

If we look back at the key controversies between monetarists and fiscalists, we can say that Keynes attached importance to the "dead end" trap like many of his followers, theoreticians, and that he pointed out that the majority of private claims and monetary assets have a counterweight in debts. On the other hand, in our consideration of the available literature, the question arises whether taxpayers, who anticipate and project that they should pay taxes to pay off a larger real public debt, consider themselves poorer and/or impoverished in the same proportion relative to bondholders on the assumption that they consider themselves richer. (Ristic, Živković, 1998; Živković et al, 2019)

It is controversial, which is concluded from the analysis of the works of different therists who belong to the two mentioned doctoral programs, that even when the national debt is reduced and/or neutralized to a certain extent " the monetary base also remains those government bonds that, in the liquidity trap, become the equivalent of money and bear no interest ". (Živković, Lakić, Ristić, 2019, p. 219)

In this regard, from the aspect of our analysis, we conclude that it is wrong to rely on the reaction of consumption and savings to recorded wealth, but it is a very careless tendency to neglect the fact that the increase in the real value of monetary wealth is favorable, perhaps even sufficient for the development of investment activities. and growth acceleration.

In order to look at the theoretical resistance of monetarists to fiscalism, we will refer to the practical versions of monetarism in Great Britain and the USA in the following chapter.

The political economy of "Reaganism and Thatcherism" as a form of confrontation with fiscalism

Confrontation with the fiscalist view of economic reality and ways of regulating and accelerating economic growth and development took its first concrete political and functional form during the Thatcher/Reagan government in Great Britain and the USA.

Thus, the establishment of practical monetarism appears as a reaction to the traditional Keynesian policy of regulating demand with fiscal policy (Pantić et al., 2021). The epoch-making name of this form of financial rule is called Thatcherism or Reaganomics, which we will use as official terms in the following text.

Namely, given that the fiscal policy at the end of the 1970s proved to be incapable of pulling the economy out of recession and stagnant frameworks, and thus of suppressing inflation and unemployment. the rapid penetration of the radical foundations of monetarism followed.

That monetarism was also called interventionist at its beginning, considering the goals it had, and soon after it received the form and name as restrictive due to the redesign of goals and desired economic outcomes (Jovanović, 2021). The practical scopes also converged with the theoretical analyzes of that era. (Ristic, Živković, 1998; Liondis, 2019)

In fact, this twinned British-American practical monetarism, which represents a type of restrictive monetary policy, basically also represents different monetaristic tendencies embodied in different names, namely Friedman's monetarism, anticipatory monetarism, etc. All of these are varieties that are actually the embodiment of the political context of the local economy in which it was created.

In the mentioned version, this monetarism in the Thatcherian Reaganomic form incorporates the policy of progressive deceleration of the money supply growth rate, then free floating exchange rates and interest rates, tax reduction and cutting of social expenditures. In its later forms, it limited the budget deficit, abolished massive subsidies to public enterprises, all with the aim of fighting inflation. (Vukša et al., 2013; Ristić, Živković, 1998)

When it comes to unemployment, they relied on the key monetarist premise that it will inevitably decrease in terms of reduction after balancing the economic environment. (Hetzel, 2017)

Such understandings and actions took into account the inevitable international exchange and international economic relations so that the transfer of the burden of stabilization to other countries would become a "locomotive" effect and initiate growth, in a compensated form, in those countries and generally lead to balance and permanent growth globally.

The main stronghold of Thatcherism was the collapse of the welfare state, and in connection with the thesis of full employment, which practically won the magical reduction of state participation in the economy and the return to laissezfaire economic behavior on the market (Đorđević & Krstić, 2020). The objective was, in fact, to break the chain of redistribution of national income in favor of wages, even at the cost of increasing the unemployment rate and deepening the recession.

This is primarily important in order to point out the current controversy that has not been resolved globally in the creation of economic policies.

Thus, according to Živković, Ristić (2020, p. 87), "the monetarism of Thatcherism and Reaganomics imprinted in various economic flows through the use of the monetarist doctrine represents a kind of mixture of more or less all its variants with the defining belief of fixing the norm of quantitative growth of monetary aggregates independently of possible interest rate fluctuations rates, then ensure the budget balance and not use the budget arsenal to amortize the fluctuations of economic activity.

The epoch-making assessment of the economic value of this doctrinal approach is reflected in the opposite views on the progressive growth of the money supply, the reduction of the budget deficit and the reduction of allowances for the growth of wages, and in fact all for the purpose of denationalization and the creation of economic liberalism.

The political economy of money today requires a re-examination of rigid attitudes about non-interference of the state in the economic environment, promotes the idea of a new entrepreneurial state, where new inclusive growth strategies that respect less inequality, greater cohesion, a safer and more stable financial sector are sought in the new framework of the social structure.

Doctrinal Controversies on Inflation: A Polyeconomic Reinterpretation

The value of money and the movement of prices as economic phenomena were the subject of observations long before Keynes. In the time before the fatal Great Recession, monetary policy was seen as the only possible option for economic guidance and optimization of price growth.

At the time of the aforementioned Great Crisis, due to the established suspicion of monetary policy, a need arose to valorize the importance of employment in addition to price stability (Krstić & Brajković, 2022). So Keynes included fiscal policy in addition to monetary policy. by which he wanted to ensure that the overall economic policy would ensure the achievement of two goals with two instruments and thereby ensure consistency in the conduct of economic policy. (Obregon, 2020)

However, after the synthesis of classical and Keynesian propositions based on taking into account the effects of real money, all the debates about the possible influence of monetary and fiscal policy on inflation turned into an extensive controversy between monetarists and Keynesians, whose polemics as a peculiar tonality still mark all economic viewpoints today.

The orthodox Keynesian approach, followed by many theoreticians, rejects and emphasizes that Keynes considered the problem of unemployment as a phenomenon of weak overall demand in a situation characterized by a tendency to fall in nominal and real prices and wages, while monetarists claim that unemployment is not a consequence of insufficient demand. but that any increase in demand caused by economic policy will lead to inflation rather than succeeding in reducing the unemployment rate, which did not actually arise as a result of reduced demand tendencies. (Bradford, 2000; Ristić, Živković, 1998)

The Friedman one is always interesting thesis that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. His epoch-making claim rightly refers to conditions in which inflation is created only by growth in the quantity of money that is faster than the growth rate of production. Later research shows even today a justified doubt and even an assertion that only permanent inflation is always and everywhere monetary, with the fact that it is true that it is not necessary that every increase in the money supply causes a proportional increase in prices..

Komazec, Ristić (2016) investigate and find that monetarists believe that inflation is a monetary phenomenon and that it is not the cause of recession, but rather that recession, growth in the employment rate, inflation and imbalances in the balance of payments resulted from a misguided monetary policy that accelerates a faster circulation of money than production growth rates, where they state that any monetary induced fluctuations in the rate of price increase actually lead to a more difficult differentiation of potentially relative from absolute price changes, which is also a contortion that was key to identify for the purposes of this work.

By reviewing various theoretical debates, we conclude that according to the understanding of supporters of the Keynesian school, inflation occurs when monetary demand exceeds the supply of goods and services. According to these statements, the demand that occurs in the conditions of faster Mr e of economic growth inevitably leads to a decrease in production reserves. Thus, Keynesians appeal to reduce the potential increase in demand by increasing taxes and interest rates and, in connection with this, a higher range of public expenditures. (Ristic, Živković, 1998)

Theorists of the so-called cost inflation, they find the cause of inflation in the increase in wages, while insisting exclusively on the application of income policy, which aims to reduce and/or control prices and wages. Regarding the scope of these theoretical elaborations, we can state that the key moment in time is when these measures will be applied. Thus, "cooling" or "heating" of the conjuncture.

Furthermore, analyzing the non-monetarist theories of inflation, any increase in investments above the level of savings, pressure in terms of the growth of wages, profits and material costs as well as the increase in the budget deficit can cause an increase in prices and inflation, but only if they determine an increase in money stocks, where there will be a constant deviation of the amount of money emitted the demand for real money stocks leads to the creation of inflationary forces that can be controlled in a certain time but not in the long run.

With this review of the mutual treatment of monetarists and fiscalists in terms of assessing which factors determine the creation of inflation and which instruments are the most suitable for suppression and control, we note that all the elaborations, polemics and discussions continue to live in these discussions without much theoretical or practical progress to this day.

However, there is a noticeable tendency of mutual respect, at least in the form of "paying attention" to the other side, which could outline some new solution in the future.

The sharp opposition between monetarists and fiscalists did not contribute to giving a concrete answer to the real process, given that inflation is the result of many factors which intertwine and integrate in certain ways.

Thus, the old Keynesian claim that monetary policy is ineffective and insufficient has been refined by the weakening of the attitude of monetarists who talk about the rigidity of fiscal policy and income policy, given that according to their interpretation these two policies have a common goal and that it is actually the reallocation of financial resources from the private sector to the public sector.

Generally speaking, we can agree that inflation is a dynamic process. The complex relationship between costs and prices, wages and market conditions of production and turnover imply that inflation must be viewed more broadly and deeply and from different and sometimes incomprehensible sides in order to avoid the trap of erroneous conclusions in the form that inflation can only be curbed by producing a recession. that market monopolies can be controlled by falling production and that the power of trade unions can be tamed by higher unemployment.