…what is hidden to the general reader is the explicit and coherent argument presented by Nash (over the last 20 years from country to country), that a currency technology in the form of a stably issued monetary supply is going to start a political evolution that will take the money printing power out of the hands of the peoples’ respective governments.
I do not mean to speak for another person, or be a credible authority on another person or their works, but after reading so much of the related material to the lecture “Ideal Money”, I feel I must make a few points as well as attempt to organize the vast and deep words and concepts in a manner that might be even more relevant to the general reader today.
We tend to think of genius as someone who thinks on a level or in a form that is unidentifiable and un-relatable to us. Consequently when John Nash speaks, especially on the concept of money, it seems we tend to feel he is discussing something that is too above us to be relevant. So much so that we seem to miss the simple message he wishes to convey. Also often, and observably so with Nash, intelligent and well studied peoples have difficulties fully expressing their ideas to an audience that may not have the same context as the speaker (ie a teacher might need an entire class just to fill in a back story). We can see this in Nash’s speeches/lectures and writings, as he often (but necessarily!) breaks into side streets among side streets.
But what is hidden to the general reader is the explicit and coherent argument presented by Nash (over the last 20 years from country to country), that a currency technology in the form of a stably issued monetary supply is going to start a political evolution that will take the money printing power out of the hands of the peoples respective governments.
Here I tried my best to organize quotes and relevant links/sources/definitions so that readers can delve into the side streets, allusions, and metaphors themselves that Nash uses. Rather than read the many scattered lectures and ideas separately over a greater period of time, the readers can sift through the most relevant and to the point aspects of “Ideal Money”, and choose to investigate deeper on the subjects or topics that are most relevant and interesting to them.
I tried to be objective but also to stay on point, these links might serve as cliff notes, yet I’m afraid even they need “cliff notes”. It might probably be best, to skim these articles, then skim the lecture Ideal Money, and then decide how to proceed with the material from there.
An Interesting Biography, an Interesting Blog, and an Interesting Lecture on ‘Ideal’ Money
What is “Ideal Money?”
How Bitcoin Is and Isn’t Ideal Money
Did Adam Smith Need “Re-Vision”?
What is Asymptotically Ideal Money?
How to Issue an E-Currency (Asymptotically Ideal Money)
Multiple Cryptographers Interested in Ideal Money and Baskets of Commodities
Satoshi’s Choice: Decoding Bitcoin’s Money Supply
EZ Pass, Roads, Decisions, Game Theory, and Money
Gresham’s Law, and Honest, Stable, Good Money
It is my opinion that there are significant and relevant connections to be made by the consciousness of the community in this material. I am also of the understanding, after having read and studied the vast majority of the works, that it is essentially the pyramidion in regards to Bitcoin’s block size problem. Or in other words the debate is waiting for us to collectively realize that the debate about block size is really about what is ideal money: that which functions more like gold, or more like paper/currency?
This is the very philosophical argument that Nash proposes the answer to, and I don’t think it is a coincidence:
…although that scheme for arranging for a system of money with ideal qualities would work well…it would be politically difficult to arrive at the implementation of such a system.
The constitutional structure of the authority behind the euro is of the “paper money” character in that nothing is really guaranteed as far as the value of the euro is concerned. But this is typical of all currencies used in the world nowadays.
I think of the possibility that a good sort of international currency might EVOLVE before the time when an official establishment might occur.
…my personal view is that a practical global money might most favorably evolve through the development first of a few regional currencies of truly good quality. And then the “integration” or “coordination” of those into a global currency would become just a technical problem. (Here I am thinking of a politically neutral form of a technological utility rather than of a money which might, for example, be used to exert pressures in a conflict situation comparable to “the cold war”.)
But the famous classical “Gresham’s Law” also reveals the intrinsic difficulty. Thus “good money” will not naturally supplant and replace “bad money” by a simple Darwinian superiority of competitive species. Rather than that, it must be that the good things are established by the voluntary choice of human agencies.