The conceptual fixation of Economics in the theory of equilibrium (as an equally ideal and functional state) does not differ from the manner in which Physics and Cosmology had remained, until a few centuries ago, captive to Aristotelian materialism and Ptolemaic sphericity, respectively. Mankind has covered its ignorance with the sufficiency of the ideal, building structures and relations in which the functional principle was only accepted if the path of sui-generis balancing between the demands of authority (including the scientific one) and their tacit acceptance by the remaining majority was made possible.

Equating perfection with the attainment of the ideal form, and performance with the achieving of equilibrium, has pushed Economics into the obsession for growth. Its sense was understood as a progressive compensation -over large segments of time - between gains and losses. Somewhat scholastically, starting from its very birth, the theory of economicity has conformed with the precepts of the universe moved by the mechanics of infallible cyclicity. The control of surpluses was, obviously, the attribute of the authority (in its various expressions) and it eventually finished by indentifying itself with the money-managing power.

The rule of the mechanical equilibrium, generator of trends towards the ideal, configured Economics as a science by way of transferring methodological perspectives, especially from Physics. It is known that the rationality of the physicalist universe is partial, the idea of the primary impulse with regard to the movement of bodies being accepted as coming from outside the system. Economics founded it dynamic universe in the same manner - finality being the trend-setting expression for the ideal equilibrium and with the prime cause coming from a nebulous nature, destined to self-generate and to induce self-regulation in the functioning of the wealth-producing mechanism.

The metaphor of the invisible hand inculcates this vision. It means that Economics has constructed a mechanism by which it - invariably - gives solutions which cumulate the surpluses of wealth in favor of the part which holds the right (as being born from the ideal) to pretend for the equilibrium to be favorable to it.

The fixation of Economics in the ideal is completely transparent in this crisis when it manifests itself as a crisis of solutions. In fact, the perception of Economics as an explicative formula for the (short-term) fluctuations in the contribution of factors to the infallible (long-term) growth does not differ from Newton's perspective when he had to explain why the universal clock does not stop. Cognitive tolerance allows for the existence in the same place of the rational and the irrational, while Economics manifests excessive tolerance in its explicative model whose result is the equivalence between the desirable ideal and the functional possible.

The crisis of solutions originates in this very tolerant composition of desirable things and functional things, which confers Economics with the quality of self-sufficient dogma. By a somewhat medieval formula, its axioms related to functionality gain the value hypotheses, allowed to explain alternative patterns to the ideal state. This vision, which in cosmology has denied the sun the central position for about a millennium, refuses in Economics the structuring function of man and the determinism of anthropical essence of the functional in favor of the ideal - Olympus-like - consistency of the market. Ideality as a self-sufficiency of the mechanism of economicity turns derisory any solution to the concrete situation, to that which truly functions in an anthropic context. At most, the solution could be accepted as a working hypothesis, in order to imagine intervention as possible when covering losses, because it cannot be accepted for the ideal stance, which pretends to self-replicate its performance.

This celestial vision on Economics tolerates the earthly race for solutions only because it accepts it as an oblation of the anthropic ignorance on the inexpugnable altar of economic ideality. The final form of unassailable ideality was taken in Economics by the natural right, of master of economicity, held by the financial market together with its first born (from its alliance with speculation), the banking system.

The crisis of solutions is the perverted expression of the intention for conservation and, after the recession, of the performance in redistributing the added value, the appropriation ideal being already now half and half between speculation and rationality. Any solution which would remove the absurdity of this partisan ideality is categorically rejected. This proves that reality is being disregarded, ideality being defined as opposed to functionality no matter the costs, especially the social ones. For no other reasons are the solutions for socializing losses accepted tacitly and the solutions for offloading the own excesses vehemently rejected.

The ideality of economicity is saved by sacrificing that which functions with a rational impulse: the real economy.