I am not sure what you are pointing to or if we disagree. I mean to say the relationship between money and law is that of the moon and its reflection. Not separable but in this way.
yes but Nash's point relies on the observation that the process of picking suitable "goods" (or services, or utilities, or stable costs etc.) can be politically corruptible as well. So theoretically the ideal standard lies here, but you have to solve the problem of political power and corruption as well.
Nash's points this out, and then proceeds to propose a different view that alludes to a creative solution.
>There is a problem for the issuer of a currency, whether in coinage, paper, or electronic form, that if this currency (or money) is too good, then it could be exploited by all sorts of parties and interests that might simply wish to safely deposit a store of wealth or even to conservatively invest some assets for future good value.
>…under extreme conditions the currency issued by a state could be exploited by parties not of that state as a sort of “safe-deposit box” on which they would not need to pay any rental fees or fees like those paid to the managers of mutual funds for investment.
>If the value trend of a currency is such that a natural interest rate is not negative, then it is not an unattractive task for a central currency authority to mint or print the physical currency that would circulate. Then the issuer of currency would be partially in the position of a borrower not paying interest on borrowed money.
And so:
>But, simply to improve the conditions under which agreements regarding long-term lending and borrowing would be made, a money would be more or less equivalently good if it had a completely steady and constant rate of inflation. Then this inflation rate could be added to all lending an borrowing contracts. Hence, the problem of a money that would be too good is avoidable.
In regards to inflation targets he remarks:
>…the possible area for evolution is that if, say, an inflation rate of between 1% and 3% is now considered desirable and appropriate in Sweden, then, if it is really controllable, why shouldn’t a rate between 1/2 % and 3/2 % be even more desirable?
It is quite interesting to think of what asymptotically ideal money might be in regards to bitcoins inflation schedule which 1/2's every four years until ultimately there is no inflation in regards to money supply.
>So here is the possibility of “asymptotically ideal money”. 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 value 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.
Nash says something like "even post keyensians" are really just Keynesians, which is funny but also shows how radically and tangentially he is thinking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je22xKQekCk
Whats most significant and interesting here is that he came up with the concept of ideal money in the 60's when he was labelled paranoid delusional and fled to Europe.
Nick Szabo is the person peoples most think programmed bitcoin. 20 years ago he developed smart contracts, which is basically programmable money that uses law as the analogue for its implementation. This is because this is essentially what is happening the mergence of software, programming, money, law, economics.
http://szabo.best.vwh.net/shell.htmlhttp://szabo.best.vwh.net/smart_contracts_idea.html
there are 10+ lectures and papers on the subject. The very first lecture starts with:
>Money can be recognized as a technological development comparable to the wheel and of similar antiquity.
Nash proposes we can use science and reason to rationally evolve the circumstances and underlying tech that is money.
There is a specific paragraph in which he explains Keynesian banking is central banking.
He doesn't say he doesn't like printing money, he notes the relationship between supply and the quality. And that by controlling supply you can control quality.
There is no rigorous model for your eyes but if you know ANYTHING about this mans work you could be rest assured that he is thinking of something incredibly accurate and technological.
In Ideal Money Nash proposes that the advant of an electronic money in the form of a stably issued money supply will asymptotically take the power out of governments and central banks to print money.