It clicked in a succinct way:

If we say money is broken, we are treating money as completely a external object.

but money hylomorphic, yes it must have materialize in an external object, but money is brought into existence subjectively through human action.

Which is why money is moral, and all economics determined by ethics.

I get the move.

The “completely objective scientific approach” to economics feels like an acceptable move in todays social context, but it’s simply not addressing reality.

Fiat takes the completely subjective approach to money, value is whatever we subjectively say it is.

That’s obviously not aligned with reality, so it makes sense to intuitively correct equal and oppositely.

but the truth is both, the hylomorphic middle path.

We should not give up the high ground.