The argument here seems to be that if currencies were freely tradable on a market, they would all converge to an optimal currency. But don’t we already have a global currency market?
You figure that is the extent of John Nash’s argument he spent 20 years defining for us? And you just defeat it in a sentence:
But don’t we already have a global currency market?
Do you know who John Nash is? He is the guy that it took 40 years for us to recognize the significance of his works. Do you think maybe the significance has simply gone over your head?
Do you know who John Nash is? He is the guy that it took 40 years for us to recognize the significance of his works. Do you think maybe the significance has simply gone over your head?
This is not actually an argument. Could you provide a reason why korin43′s observation does not invalidate your proposal?
The answer to your questions is too big. There is an intrinsic problem with our gobal financial system. Essentially the triffin dilemma. Governments, because self interested, cannot act for the good of the citizens. It is the nature of the problem.
Nash proposes the introduction of a “good” money, but it is good not in the conventional sense, but rather the “gold” sense (which again he defines because not many understand).
With the introduction of this international “gold money”, there is now a new stage set or game created. Governments now have to respond to the fact that citizens can CHOOSE, and so the markets start to (let’s say) “hyper-reflect the quality of our money.
The ultimate result is a limit towards what Nash calls Ideal Money, which is money comparable to an optimally chosen and adjusted basket of industrial commodity prices.
…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.
…for the government of a state, acting on its own independently of other states, to rationally contemplate the evolution of the inflation rate for its currency towards zero there are clearly some very relevant considerations relating to tax revenue expectations.
I think of the possibility that a good sort of international currency might EVOLVE before the time when an official establishment might occur.
To be quite respectable, in a Gresham-advised sense, money needs only to be AS GOOD as other material commod-ities that might be hoarded.
Starting with the idea of value stabilization in relation to a domestic price index associated with the territory of one state, beyond that there is the natural and logical concept of internationally based comparisons.
The currencies being compared, like now the euro, the dollar, the yen, the pound, the swiss franc, the swedish kronor, etc. can be viewed with critical eyes by their users and by those who maybe have the option of whether or not or how to use one of them. This can lead to pressure for good quality and consequently for a lessened rate of inflationary deprecation in value.
And so the various currencies managed with “inflation targeting” would be comparable by users or observers who would be able to form opinions about the quality of the currencies. And what I want to suggest is that “the public” or the users, those for whom a medium of exchange functions as a basic utility, may develop opinions that are critical of currencies of lower “value quality”. That is, the public may learn to demand better quality of that which CAN be managed to be of better quality or which can be manged to be lof the lower quality observed in so many of the various national currencies in the 20th century.
“Keynesian” players in this game have natural opponents (or co-players, beyond zero-sum perspectives) who are interested in not being themselves “outsmarted” by those who control the options that determine, say, the quantity supplied of the national currency.
With the introduction of this international “gold money”, there is now a new stage set or game created. Governments now have to respond to the fact that citizens can CHOOSE, and so the markets start to (let’s say) “hyper-reflect the quality of our money.
Please elaborate. We can already exchange currencies or even use cryptocurrencies. Governments already respond to the fact that citizens can choose what currency to keep their assets in and what currency to trade in internationally. This is true without a “gold money”, and I fail to see how the presence of a “gold money” would improve the picture. Or in another framing, if Nash is right, then we are already evolving toward “gold money” as governments have to respond to these incentives. However, the technical definition of a “limit” that Nash is using only implies that the goal will be reached at the “limit” of time, meaning, we will never actually reach that ideal state.
Gold money means that the VALUE is relatively stable (relative to other options) in comparison to Ideal Money (which is money comparable to an optimally chosen basket of stable global commodity prices). We have never had that option, other than gold that Nash explains failed for reasons, and is not a good idea to re-instate for reasons.
Also the governments heavily restrict our ability seek better alternatives.
Because it leaves the market participants with no basis for valuation. Every time they find one there is pressure for self interested actors to corrupt it. And also it doesn’t matter, if I don’t give an argument then the suggestion is still that competition will tend the currencies towards ideal.
Which is it? Competition evolves currency toward an ideal, or competition provides pressure driving self-interested actors toward corrupting currencies?
Flinter, do you know who John Nash is? He had a brilliant mind and produced some remarkable works but he also had mental illness that occasionally caused him to misunderstand reality and so we can not just assume something he passionately believed in is right.
The argument here seems to be that if currencies were freely tradable on a market, they would all converge to an optimal currency. But don’t we already have a global currency market?
You figure that is the extent of John Nash’s argument he spent 20 years defining for us? And you just defeat it in a sentence:
Do you know who John Nash is? He is the guy that it took 40 years for us to recognize the significance of his works. Do you think maybe the significance has simply gone over your head?
Yes, I think the significance has gone over my head. That’s why I asked the question rather than making an assertion.
This is not actually an argument. Could you provide a reason why korin43′s observation does not invalidate your proposal?
Its not my proposal.
The answer to your questions is too big. There is an intrinsic problem with our gobal financial system. Essentially the triffin dilemma. Governments, because self interested, cannot act for the good of the citizens. It is the nature of the problem.
Nash proposes the introduction of a “good” money, but it is good not in the conventional sense, but rather the “gold” sense (which again he defines because not many understand).
With the introduction of this international “gold money”, there is now a new stage set or game created. Governments now have to respond to the fact that citizens can CHOOSE, and so the markets start to (let’s say) “hyper-reflect the quality of our money.
The ultimate result is a limit towards what Nash calls Ideal Money, which is money comparable to an optimally chosen and adjusted basket of industrial commodity prices.
Please elaborate. We can already exchange currencies or even use cryptocurrencies. Governments already respond to the fact that citizens can choose what currency to keep their assets in and what currency to trade in internationally. This is true without a “gold money”, and I fail to see how the presence of a “gold money” would improve the picture. Or in another framing, if Nash is right, then we are already evolving toward “gold money” as governments have to respond to these incentives. However, the technical definition of a “limit” that Nash is using only implies that the goal will be reached at the “limit” of time, meaning, we will never actually reach that ideal state.
Gold money means that the VALUE is relatively stable (relative to other options) in comparison to Ideal Money (which is money comparable to an optimally chosen basket of stable global commodity prices). We have never had that option, other than gold that Nash explains failed for reasons, and is not a good idea to re-instate for reasons.
Also the governments heavily restrict our ability seek better alternatives.
Please continue. Why is competition between international currencies not sufficient to emanetize the eschaton?
Because it leaves the market participants with no basis for valuation. Every time they find one there is pressure for self interested actors to corrupt it. And also it doesn’t matter, if I don’t give an argument then the suggestion is still that competition will tend the currencies towards ideal.
Which is it? Competition evolves currency toward an ideal, or competition provides pressure driving self-interested actors toward corrupting currencies?
Flinter, do you know who John Nash is? He had a brilliant mind and produced some remarkable works but he also had mental illness that occasionally caused him to misunderstand reality and so we can not just assume something he passionately believed in is right.