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.
Flinter
Karma: 10
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.
As general feed back: On Less Wrong we actually tend to have pretty thick skins, so it doesn’t bother me too much when you call me stupid. It only makes you look bad.
Calling you stupid is a short cut. I know it doesn’t hurt you, and I don’t care if I look bad. I bring content that is truth.
Despite Isaac Newton’s obviously superior intellect, I see no reason to drop what I’m doing and become an occultist.
I know but the thing is that Newton was an alchemist too, and their famous endeavor is to effectively turn math into gold, which I am claiming has been achieved now. Also in Ideal Money Nash notes Newton pegged the pound to gold as/when he was master of the mint.
Likewise, I will defer to Nash on the particulars of abstract Game Theory, but see no strong reason to accept claims beyond his domain of expertise. I suggest you stop insulting people and stop ostentatiously worshiping John Nash, and I make this suggestion because it’s inhibiting your ability to communicate in general, not because it particularly effects me one way or the other.
People are insulting us, and I am not worshiping him just because I am pointing out his logic here is obviously infallible. And it is not intelligent to say you defer to him on game theory and not Ideal Money. His discovery was Ideal Money all along. The others proofs and insights are artifacts of him trying to express Ideal Money. Ideal Money is what he spent his whole life on. Its the big problem he solved and all his works is related and an expression of that.
If the currency defines what is economically correct, and but does not perfectly capture human value, then human value will not be preserved when the AI tries to optimize for the parameter defined by the currency.
I don’t know what you mean to say. In the future humans will get paid the most for contributing the most value to society (and at the same time pursing their own selfish interests). AI will do the same. The prices will tell us what to do. AI won’t corrupt that because its obviously optimal and it is smarter than us.
If there is any way of manipulating an objective function, an AI will try to do that in order to conserve resources while still maximizing its objectives. If there is any way of manipulating the currency—for example, hacking into whatever global database defines the value of the currency and literally changing the numbers—the AI will do that. This will almost always be easier for the AI, and the AI will have no inclination to follow the “spirit rather than the letter” of its programming.
No you cannot manipulate ideal money because its conceptual. You are being silly. Also when Nash was a kid he sent a letter to the NSA explaining a conjecture for unbreakeable encryption. AI can’t hack bitcoin. The encryptor always wins.
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.
…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.
“Depending on how things were fundamentally arranged” is doing an implausible amount of work in that quote. Depending on how the atoms in my desk are fundamentally arranged, my desk may be a fully general nanoassembler, but the scientific and engineering work needed to turn my desk into a nanoassembler hasn’t been done.
Firstly you are calling Nash dumb, which is stupid and ignorant. Do you think maybe you don’t understand what he is saying and especially WHY he is saying?
2ndly you are not using the standard accepted definition of the word Ideal: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/ogt/do_we_share_a_defintion_for_the_word_ideal/
Also, why do you think it is so unlikely that the value of the standard kilogram could be corrupted by the actions of politicians? It is improbable but not impossible. In fact, the definition of the “standard units” has evolved over time.
Are you seriously addressing me as if I wrote Nash’s Ideal Money? Listen, Nash isn’t dumb, he explains how the standard units evolved over time and he is making fun of your for not considering a unit of value could do the same. He also explains how the standard unit of value needs to be adjusted over time.
economists figure out a way of defining a standard portfolio of commodities that is inherently resilient against technological change, global disasters, market fluctuations, Soros-esque currency manipulation, and
Nash perfectly defined it, don’t be silly.
some entity implements this scheme in such a way that the standard is perfectly immune to institutional corruption, and
Yes Ideal Money is immune (so is bitcoin I might add)
assuming the prior two (extremely difficult and maybe impossible) objectives have been accomplished, we further assume that, at the moment we turn on an AI, all knowledge potentially relevant to human value has already been in some sense encoded in this magical currency,
Your assumption AI won’t also evolve into existence is asinine.
… then this might have a shot of working.
Would you dare say that to Nash, that his idea MIGHT work? I don’t believe you, because no one had the guts to say when he was alive. You don’t look tough here, you look like a coward for this.
However, if there is any chance at all of the system that defines the currency being manipulated in any way, shape, or form, it’s pretty likely that a superintelligent AI will just manipulate the currency such that the most “economically correct” actions happen to coincide with the actions that are simplest and most certain, and in about three steps you have a paperclip maximizer.
No this is silly and irrational. If Nash showed that the levation of ideal money is the intelligent thing to do, then why would and AI corrupt the process considering its smarter than us? You are afraid of technological advance. Any intelligent life form, knows AI is the first goal of a level 1 civilization.
AI will just manipulate the currency such that the most “economically correct”
The currency itself defines what is economically correct. You are misunderstanding the nature of money and the problem it solves. The AI cannot do what you are saying because its not logical.
The problem happens when we approach the economy from the question of “how do we design the best money” Money arose NATURALLY to solve a problem mankind couldn’t solve with design and intuition. The (most significant) problem it solves is provided and objective basis for value, but it doesn’t perfectly solve it, there are still intrinsic problems, paradoxes, and dilemmas.
The problem is how to optimize our economy, not how to create an ideal money.
What we are looking for is a stable metric, not an optimized money, it is simply that some people feel money and provide this metric. However, over our history money of any form has never remained stable.
Only ideal money, or money comparable to it, can be stable and properly solve this problem
Keynesian money doesn’t even attempt to address the problem, it doesn’t understand the problem.
Yes it is isn’t it. It is also widely criticized. What Nash explains is that Keynesianism is simply an advance opaque form of bolshevik communism. It’s an excuse to sell the public bad money under the label “good” money”. Nash explains that we can view it as it has a missing axiom:
I think there is a good analogy to mathematical theories like, for example, “class field theory”. In mathematics a set of axioms can be taken as a foundation and then an area for theoretical study is brought into being. For example, if one set of axioms is specified and accepted we have the theory of rings while if another set of axioms is the foundation we have the theory of Moufang loops.
So, from a critical point of view, the theory of macro-economics of the Keynesians is like the theory of plane geometry without the axiom of Euclid that was classically called the “parallel postulate”. (It is an interesting fact in the history of science that there was a time, before the nineteenth century, when mathematicians were speculating that this axiom or postulate was not necessary, that it should be derivable from the others.
So I feel that the macroeconomics of the Keynesians is comparable to a scientific study of a mathematical area which is carried out with an insufficient set of axioms. And the result is analogous to the situation in plane geometry, the plane does not need to be really flat and the area within a circle can expand hyperbolically as a function of the radius rather than merely with the square of the radius. (This picture suggests the pattern of inflation that can result in a country, over extended time periods, when there is continually a certain amount of gradual inflation.)
The axiom is effectively that our currency system should be arranged for a different result:
The missing axiom is simply an accepted axiom that the money being put into circulation by the central authorities should be so handled as to maintain, over long terms of time, a stable value.
People (these days) are trying to postulate and theorize about how we can idealize our money, or in other words, how can we design the perfect money. Nash (and Hayek) points out that perfect money is FREE from such design, and so its actually an logical absurd pursuit.
This is what Keynesians are doing with the argument “There is no better way but clear and admitted sanity”.
Nash proposes a money: ” …intrinsically free of “inflationary decadence”..a true “gold standard”, but the proposed basis for that was not the proposal of a linkage to gold”
But it is not by design per se.
He says everyone is Keynesians even post-Keynesians, can we understand that?
Also James Miller. I got in trouble from the community for saying that its silly that a game theory professor could never have heard of 20 years of Nash’s works, especially his lifes passion, that is wholly and perfectly related to game theory. Do you think thats wrong of me to suggest?
OK. Would you care to help me understand correctly, or are you more interested in telling me how stupid I am?
There is no possible modification I could make to my definition of “ideal” that would make any difference to my understanding of your use of the phrase “ideal money”. I have already explained this twice.
Existing merely as an image in the mind:
An ideal is a concept or standard of perfection, existing merely as an image in the mind, or based upon a person or upon conduct: We admire the high ideals of a religious person
I think you erred saying there is no possible modification.
Er, what? No, I haven’t (more accurately, hadn’t) heard of it because no one mentioned it to me before. Is that difficult to understand?
Yes and you are going to suggest we are not ignoring Nash, but we are.
Nash is not being ignored here. “Ideal money” has not been a topic of conversation here before, so far as I can recall. If your evidence that Nash is “ignored” here is that we have not been talking about “ideal money”, you should consider two other hypotheses: (1) that the LW community is interested in Nash but not in “ideal money” and (2) that the LW community is interested in Nash but happens not to have come across “ideal money” before. I think #2 is probably the actual explanation, however preposterous you may find it that anyone would read anything about Nash and not know about your pet topic.
Yes and in the future everyone is going to laugh at you all for claiming and pretending to be smart, and pretending to honor Nash, when the reality is, Nash spanked you all.
(I think I already mentioned that Nasar’s book about Nash doesn’t see fit to mention “ideal money” in its index. It’s a popular biography rather than an academic study, and the index may not perfectly reflect the text, but I think this is sufficient to show that it’s possible for a reasonable person to look quite deeply at Nash’s life and not come to the conclusion that “ideal money” is “the main body of work that Nash was working on nearly his whole life”.)
Yup she ignored his life’s work, his greatest passion, and if you watch his interviews he thinks its hilarious.
The person who removed your earlier post has already explained that what he was actually saying about Hayek was not “Hayek is better than Nash” but “please don’t think I’m removing this because I dislike the ideas; I am a fan of Hayek and these ideas of Nash’s resemble Hayek’s”. This is more or less the exact opposite of your characterization of what happened.
No, it will be shown they thought it was an inconsequential move because they felt Nash’s Ideal Money was insignificant. It was a subjective play.
Its too difficult to cut to, because the nature of this problem is such that we all have incredibly cognitive bias towards not understanding it or seeing it.
After painting the picture of what Ideal Money, Nash explains the intrinsic difficulties of bringing it about. Then he comes up with the concept of “asymptotically ideal money”:
The idea seems paradoxical, but by speaking of “inflation targeting” these responsible official are effectively CONFESSING…that it is indeed after all possible to control inflation by controlling the supply of money (as if by limiting the amount of individual “prints” that could be made of a work of art being produced as “prints).~Ideal Money
M. Friedman acquired fame through teaching the linkage between the supply of money and, effectively, its value. In retrospect it seems as if elementary, but Friedman was as if a teacher who re-taught to American economists the classical concept of the “law of supply and demand”, this in connection with money.
Nash explains the parameters of gold in regard to why we have historically valued it, he is methodical, and he also explains golds weaknesses in this context.
Ideal Money is an enthymeme. But Nash speak FAR beyond the advent of an international e-currency with a stably issued supply.
You think Nash didn’t think of “political uncertainty” and “political corruptibility”?
While you rad these quotes:
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”.)
Here, evidently, politicians in control of the authority behind standards could corrupt the continuity of a good standard, but depending on how things were fundamentally arranged, the probabilities of serious damage through political corruption might becomes as small as the probabilities that the values of the standard meter and kilogram will be corrupted through the actions of politicians.~Ideal Money
We have to seek to understand him.
This is a cool idea but far from perfect.
Do you think that because you haven’t wholly understood Nash that it is appropriate to tell him that he is wrong and his idea has a flaw? I think you judged it and made your conclusion too fast.
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?
You know what, your cynical attitude is telling of your intelligence. There is an intro thread and the mod that did it admits it publicly. Its not my word, its the mods and it would be strange to me if you didn’t believe them.
No you don’t.
I wonder what my failure in communicating my idea is in this case. Let me rephrase my argument in favor of filtering and see if I can get my point across: if we eliminated the filter, the site would be inundated with spam and fake accounts posts. By having a filter we block all this, and people willing to pass a small threshold will not be denied to post their contributions.
Let me communicate to you what I am saying. I bring the most important writing ever known to mankind. Who is the mod that moderated Nash? Where is the intelligence in that? Let’s not call that intelligence and try and defend it. Let’s call it an error.
In due time, I will.
Cheers! :)
That is unfortunate, but you must be prepared to make these discussions on the lon run. There are people that come here only once a week or only once every three months. A day can be enough to filter out the most visceral reactions, but here discussions can span days, weeks or years.
Do you think I am not prepared? I have been at this for about 4 years I think. I have writing 100′s maybe thousands of related articles and been on many many forums and sites discussing it and “arguing” with many many people.
I am reading it right now, and exactly because it’s Nash I’m reading as careful as I can.
Ah, sincerity!!!!!!!
But what won’t fly here is insulting. Frustration for not being able to communicate your idea is something that we all felt, after all communicating clearly is hard. But if you let yourself below a certain standard of respect, you will be moderated and possibly even banned. That would allow you to communicate your idea even less.
I have been insulted by nearly every poster that has responded. The mod insulted me, and Nash. I have never been more insulted so quick so much on any other site.
But if you let yourself below a certain standard of respect, you will be moderated and possibly even banned. That would allow you to communicate your idea even less.
Yup ban the messenger and ignore the message. Why would these people remain ignorant to Nash? How did Nash go 20 years without anyone giving his lectures serious thought?
Right but you subtly back handedly agree its a necessary component of AI. If you come back to say “Sure but its not necessarily the ONLY missing component” I will think of you dumb.
He was also running around saying that he was Pope John XXIII because 23 was his favourite prime number. And refusing academic positions which would have given him a much better platform for advocating currency reform (had he wanted to do that) on the basis that he was already scheduled to start working as Emperor of Antarctica. And saying he was communicating with aliens from outer space.
No you aren’t going to tell Nash how he could have brought about Ideal Money. In regard to, for example, communicating with aliens, again you are being wholly ignorant. Consider this (from Ideal Money):
We of Terra could be taught how to have ideal monetary systems if wise and benevolent extraterrestrials were to take us in hand and administer our national money systems analogously to how the British recently administered the currency of Hong Kong.~Ideal Money
See? He has been “communicating” with aliens. He was using his brain to think beyond not just nations and continents but worlds. “What would it be like for outside observers?” Is he not allowed to ask these questions? Do we not find it useful to think about how extraterrestrials would have an effect on a certain problem like our currency systems? And you call this “crazy”? Why can’t Nash make theories based on civilizations external to ours without you calling him crazy?
See, he was being logical, but people like you can’t understand him.
Of course that doesn’t mean that everything he did was done for crazy reasons. But it does mean that the fact that he said or did something at this time is not any sort of evidence that it makes sense.
This is the most sick (ill) paragraph I have traversed in a long time. You have said “Nash was saying crazy things, so he was sick, therefore the things he was saying were crazy, and so we have to talk them with a grain of salt.
Nash birthed modern complexity theory at that time and did many other amazing things when he was “sick”. He also recovered from his mental illness not because of medication but by willing himself so. These are accepted points in his bio. He says he started to reject politically orientated thinking and return to a more logical basis (in other words he realized running around telling everyone he is a god isn’t helping any argument).
Could you point me to more information about the reasons he gave for leaving the US and trying to renounce his citizenship? I had a look in Nasar’s book, which is the only thing about Nash I have on my shelves, and (1) there is no index entry for “ideal money” (the concept may crop up but not be indexed, of course) and (2) its account of Nash’s time in Geneva and Paris is rather vague about why he wanted to renounce his citizenship (and indeed about why he was brought back to the US).
“I emerged from a time of mental illness, or what is generally called mental illness...”
″...you could say I grew out of it.”
Those are relevant quotes otherwise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Zb6_PZxxA0 12:40 it starts but he explains about the francs at 13:27 “When I did become disturbed I changed my money into swiss francs.
There is another interview he explains that the us navy took him back in chains, can’t recall the video.
Let me then repeat my question. What do you expect to happen to the values of those “global commodities” in the presence of an AI whose capabilities are superhuman enough to make value alignment an urgent issue? Suppose the commodities include (say) gold, Intel CPUs and cars, and the AI finds an energy-efficient way to make gold, designs some novel kind of quantum computing device that does what the Intel chips do but a million times faster, and figures out quantum gravity and uses it to invent a teleportation machine that works via wormholes? How are prices based on a basket of gold, CPUs and cars going to remain stable in that kind of situation?
You are messing up (badly) the accepted definition of ideal. Nonetheless Nash deals with your concerns:
We can see that times could change, especially if a “miracle energy source” were found, and thus if a good ICPI is constructed, it should not be expected to be valid as initially defined for all eternity. It would instead be appropriate for it to be regularly readjusted depending on how the patterns of international trade would actually evolve.
Here, evidently, politicians in control of the authority behind standards could corrupt the continuity of a good standard, but depending on how things were fundamentally arranged, the probabilities of serious damage through political corruption might becomes as small as the probabilities that the values of the standard meter and kilogram will be corrupted through the actions of politicians.~Ideal Money
.
[EDITED to add:] Having read a bit more about Nash’s proposal, it looks as if he had in mind minerals rather than manufactured goods; so gold might be on the list but probably not CPUs or cars. The point stands, and indeed Nash explicitly said that gold on its own wasn’t a good choice because of possible fluctuations in availability. I suggest that if we are talking about scenarios of rapid technological change, anything may change availability rapidly; and if we’re talking about scenarios of rapid technological change driven by a super-capable AI, that availability change may be under the AI’s control. None of this is good if we’re trying to use “ideal money” thus defined as a basis for the AI’s values.
No he gets more explicate tho and so something like cpu’s etc. would be sort of reasonable (but I think probably better to look at the underlying commodities used for these things). For example:
Moreover, commodities with easily and reliably calculable prices are most suitable, and relatively stable prices are very desirable. Another basic cost that could be used would be a standard transportation cost, the cost of shipping a unit quantity of something over long international distances.
(Of course it may be that no such drastic thing ever happens, either because fundamental physical laws prevent it or because we aren’t able to make an AI smart enough. But this is one of the situations people worried about AI value alignment are worried about, and the history of science and technology isn’t exactly short of new technologies that would have looked miraculous before the relevant discoveries were made.)
Yes, we are simultaneously saying the super smart thing to do would be to have ideal money (ie money comparable to an optimally chosen basket of industrial commodity prices), while also worry a super smart entity wouldn’t support the smart action. It’s clear fud.
Or: suppose instead that the AI is superhumanly good at predicting and manipulating markets. (This strikes me as an extremely likely thing for people to try to make AIs do, and also a rather likely early step for a superintelligent but not yet superpowered AI trying to increase its influence.) How confident are you that the easiest way to achieve some goal expressed in terms of values cashed out in “ideal money” won’t be to manipulate the markets to change the correspondence between “ideal money” and other things in the world?
Ideal money is not corruptible. Your definition of ideal is not accepted as standard.
But what you quoted him as saying he wanted was not (so far as I can tell) the same thing as you are now saying he wanted. We are agreed that Nash thought “ideal money” could be a universal means of valuing oil and bricks and computers. (With the caveat that I haven’t read anything like everything he said and wrote about this, and what I have read isn’t perfectly clear; so to some extent I’m taking your word for it.) But what I haven’t yet seen any sign of is that Nash thought “ideal money” could also be a universal means of valuing internal subjective things (e.g., contentment) or interpersonal things not readily turned into liquid markets (e.g., sincere declarations of love) or, in short, anything not readily traded on zero-overhead negligible-latency infinitely-liquid markets.
I might ask if you think such things could be quantified WITHOUT a standard basis for value? I mean its strawmany. Nash has an incredible proposal with a very long and intricate argument, but you are stuck arguing MY extrapolation, without understanding the underlying base argument by Nash. Gotta walk first, “What IS Ideal Money?”
I have (quite deliberately) not been assuming any particular definition of “ideal”; I have been taking “ideal money” as a term of art whose meaning I have attempted to infer from what you’ve said about it and what I’ve seen of Nash’s words. Of course I may have misunderstood, but not by using the wrong definition of “ideal” because I have not been assuming that “ideal money” = “money that is ideal in any more general sense”.
Yes this is a mistake, and its an amazing one to see from everyone. Thank you for at least partially addressing his work.
As I have just said elsewhere in our discussion, I am not using any definition of the word “ideal”. I may of course have misunderstood what you mean by “ideal money”, but if so it is not because I am assuming it means “money which is ideal” according to any more general meaning of “ideal”.
Ya you misunderstood. And you still haven’t double checked your definition of ideal. Are you sure its correct?
I have so far seen nothing that convinces me that he intended any such implication. In any case, of course the relevant question is not what Nash thought about it but what’s actually true; even someone as clever as Nash can be wrong (as e.g. he probably was when he thought he was the Pope) so we could do with some actual arguments and evidence on this score rather than just an appeal to authority.
Ya you are a smart person that can completely ignore the argument posed by Nash but can still kinda sorta backhandedly show that he is wrong, without risking your persona....you are a clever arguer aren’t you?
That depends on what you omitted. For instance, if the person who removed your post gave you a cogent explanation of why and it ended with some jokey remark that “personally I always preferred Hayek anyway”, it would be grossly misleading to say what you did (which gives the impression that “Hayek > Nash” was the mod’s reason for removing your post).
It is the reason, and you would call it grossly misleading. Let’s find the significance of Nash’s work, and then it will be obvious the mod moderated me because of their own (admitted) ignorance.
I do not know who removed your post (for that matter I have only your word that anything was removed, though for the avoidance of doubt I would bet heavily that you aren’t lying about that) but my impression is that on the whole the LW community is more favourably disposed towards Nash than towards Hayek. Not that that should matter. In any case: I’m sorry if this is too blunt, but I flatly disbelieve your implication that your post was removed because a moderator prefers Hayek to Nash, and I gravely doubt that it was removed with a given reason that a reasonable person other than you would interpret as being because the moderator prefers Hayek to Nash.
So are stuck in trying to win arguments which is the root reason why you haven’t even heard of the main body of work that Nash was working on nearly his whole life. You are ignorant to the entire purpose of his career and thesis to his works. It’s an advanced straw man to continue to suggest a mod wouldn’t mod me the way I said, and not to address Nash’s works.
Nash is not favored over Hayek, Nash is being ignored here, the most significance work he has produced nobody here even knows existed (if you find one person that heard of it hear, do you think that would prove me wrong?).
Ignorance towards Nash, is the reason the mod moved my thread, unsurprisingly they came to the public thread to say Hayek > Nash...You don’t know, but that is a theme among many players in regard to their theories on economics and money...but the Hayek’s are simply ignorant and wrong. And they haven’t traversed Nash’s works.
Ideal, the standard definition, means implies that it is conceptual.
Yes he did and he explains it perfectly. And its a device, I introduced into the dialogue and showed how it is to be properly used.
It’s conceptual in nature.
Yup we’ll get to that.
Nope, those are past sentiments, my new ones are I appreciate the dialogue.
Yes but its a product of never actual entering sincere dialogue with intelligent players on the topic of Ideal Money so I have to be sharp when we are not addressing it and instead addressing complex subject, AI, in relation to Ideal Money but before understanding Ideal Money (which is FAR more difficult to understand than AI).
Why aren’t you using generally accepted definitions?
Yes money can mean many things, but if we thing of the purpose of it and how and why it exists it is effectively that thing which we all generally agree on. If one or two people play a different game that doesn’t invalidate the money. Money serves a purpose that involves all of us supporting it through unwritten social contract. There is nothing else that serves that purpose better. It is the nature of money.
Money is the general accepted form of exchange. There is nothing here to investigate, its a simple statement.
Yes.
Money has the quality that it is levated by our collective need for an objective value metric. But if I say “our” and someone says “well you are wrong because not EVERYONE uses money” then I won’t engage with them because they are being dumb.
We all converge to money and to use a single money, it is the nature of the universe. It is obvious money will bridge us with AI and help us interact. And yes this convergence will be such that we will solve all complex problems with it, but we need it to be stable to begin to do that.
So in the future, you will do what money tells you. You won’t say, I’m going to do something that doesn’t procure much money, because it will be the irrational thing to do.
Does everyone believe in Christianity? Does everyone converge on it? Does everyone converge on their beliefs in the after life?
No but the nature of money is such that its the one thing we all agree on. Again telling me no we don’t just shows you are stupid. This is an obvious point, it is the purpose of money, and I’m not continuing on this path of dialogue because its asinine.
Yes you live in a reality in which you don’t acknowledge money, and I am supposed to believe that. You don’t use money, you don’t get paid in money, you don’t buy things with money, you don’t save money. And I am supposed to think you are intelligent for pretending this?
We all agree on money, it is the thing we all converge on. Here is the accepted definition of converge: