Bitcoin, Ideal Money, and the End of the Keynesian Central Banking Era: John Nash Predicted This

The script or plan for my talk linking the “ideal money” …was influenced by concerns that it would be wise not to speak too incautionsly of “the Keynesians” when the times are such that …a state administration can act without going through the parliamentary processes to write new legislation.

Therefore, I had arranged for 2012 to talk more cautiously in relation to whatever would impact with “the Keynesians” and with the political interest relating also to the scholarly factions allied with (or forming) “the Keynesians”.

And this caution carries over naturally to 2013 also.

Ideal Money cliffs (lecture by John Nash)

Money has a long and interesting history.
We may become irrational in thinking about it and fail to be able to reason about it like about a technology.
“Keynesian” economists, have sold to the public a “quasi-doctrine” which teaches “bad money is better than good money”
…money itself is a sort of “utility”, using the word in another sense, comparable to supplies of water, electric energy or telecommunications.
A “Keynesian” would favor the existence of…central bank and treasury…
…viewed scientifically and rationally (which is psychologically difficult!) that money should have the function of a standard of measurement…
…intrinsically free of “inflationary decadence” similarly to how money would be free from that on a true “gold standard”, but the proposed basis for that was not the proposal of a linkage to gold.
…it would be politically difficult to arrive at the implementation of such a system.
…a new “line” that has become popular with those responsible for “central banking” functions relation to national currencies that gave us the idea for the study of “asymptotically ideal“ money.
…it is indeed after all possible to control inflation by controlling the supply of money…
…there COULD be introduced, for example, a similar international currency…
…then there would arise interesting possibilities for comparisons between these major currencies.
…from an internationally oriented viewpoint, the various currencies would have rates of exchange so that they could be realistically compared in terms of their actual values.
…“inflation targeting” would be comparable by users or observes who would be able to form opinions about the quality of the currencies.
The public may learn to demand better quality…
This can lead to pressure for good quality and consequently for a lessened rate of inflationary depreciation…
…it cannot be irrelevant whether or not the future quality of a currency is really assured or whether instead that it depends on the shifting sands of political decisions….
We can legitimately wonder how the speediness of its adoption or delays in its adoption might affect the policies operating to control the actual exchange value of the euro.
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 that it is possible that “the Keynesians“ are like a political faction that will becomes less influential as a result of political evolution.
…(All over the world varieties of states make claims to have governments very properly or even ideally devoted to the interests of the citizens of nationals of those states and always an externally located critic can argue that the governments is actually a sort of despotism.)
The Keynesians implicitly always have the argument that some good manages can do things of beneficial value, operating with the treasure and the central bank, and that it is not needed or appropriate for the citizenry for the “customers” of the currency supplied by the state to actually understand, while the managers are managing, what exactly there are doing and how it affect the “pocketbook” circumstances of these customers.
…“the Keynesians”…while they have claimed to be operating for high and noble objectives of general welfare what is clearly true is that they have made it easier for governments to “print money”.
It can be said that they tend to think in terms of government agencies operating in a benevolent fashion that is, however, beyond the comprehension of the citizens of the state.
…not implausible that a process of political evolution might lead to the expectation on the part of the citizens in the “great democracies” that they should be better situated to be able to understand whatever will be the monetary polices which, indeed, are typically of great importance to the citizens who may have alternative options for where to place their “savings”.
…I learned of the work and publications of Friedrich Von Hayek. I must say that my thinking is apparently quite parallel to his thinking in relation to money and particularity with regard to the non-typical viewpoint in relation to the functions of the authorities which in recent times have been the sources of currencies (earlier “coinage”).)