Talk:Ideal money

Bitcoin
To whomever constantly trying to shoehorn mentions of bitcoin into the article: I'm sure you like to think of bitcoin as "ideal money". However, the article is about a specific idea introduced by Nash. If you can find a reliable source connecting bitcoin to the topic, please cite it. Until then it's WP:OR and does not belong here. 88.195.156.40 (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Definition?
Can someone please find and add a definition of what exactly "ideal money" means? I tried using search engines, but the definitions they find don't seem to match the handwavey qualities this article lists. Saying that "ideal money" can solve short-vs-long-term monetary policy conflicts of interest and acts more like an engineered technology does not actually define what it is. MarkGyver (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Definition
Ideal Money is an international stable money system. This could be achieved either through each central bank optimally managing their money supplies or by having bitcoin used as the world currency.

Editing
I'm going to start editing the Ideal Money page and make some notes here. I expect many revisions to my grammer from others. There is a difficulty here I believe. There are very few publications about John Nash's Ideal Money especially if we don't consider his writings as "publications". And most of the sources that can be cited are very inaccurate in regard to Nash's insights. This is quite significant, because I will be showing that Nash's specific made his works difficult to understand out of fear of state reprisal. Although I will be keep any conspiracy sounding points out of the main body it is definitely part of the explanation and I will be using specific quotes showing this.

Basically my sources will start out as link's I created to Nash's writing so that I can quote and cite them and at least be true to his words. Over time I will find the links from his homepage where I found the different writings and that should suffice for wiki standards. There are a view other publications by media sources and via interviews and I mean to add those as well. And few other comments and writings by reputable persons (such as Yanis Varoufakis), alas, I am forced to show that these people and publications did not at all understand Nash's argument. So they are not very helpful in building a case for understanding Ideal Money.

"Ideal Money" with capital letters as John Nash's argument, needs to be disambiguated with ideal money, which is a question that tends to a different problem.

So I will evolve this over (a short period) of time, and I hope that me sourcing, less external publications, and more so simply his essay will suffice so that I can get this story and argument to the world and people that will know what to do with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JalanT (talk • contribs) 18:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

JalanT (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I added the sections I think its quite appropriate. There are a lot of quotes but there are quite significant and they give a great overview of the overall insight Nash was trying to convey. I'll try to dig up the exact links for the papers from his homepage over time. The sections might seem like tangential side streets but I suspect for anyone who reads the page in its entirety they will be quite welcome as well as the notes re: bitcoin.

JalanT (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I have made a proper balance of quotations versus summary and points made and so I hope we can now remove the header/block that says its too quote heavy etc. JalanT (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Would be helpful to know the citations that this is referencing and I can address the flags appropriately cheers: "This article may contain excessive or improper use of non-free material. Please review the use of non-free media according to policy and guidelines and correct any violations. The talk page may have details. (December 2017)"

JalanT (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Notability
It is not at all clear to me that this is a notable topic. Nash's paper has been cited 38 times in twenty years, which is not impressive. It does not seem to have any major place in the economics literature. The topic seems much more suitable as something for a short paragraph on Nash's biography page. Gumshoe2 (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)