Hey Jal, thanks for writing this up. This is fascinating to me. Could you let me know if my below understanding of Nash's argument is correct?
So with the semantics out of the way. Is my understanding of Nash’s argument correct? (a) & (b) work together not in isolation.https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/999190170460078080?s=21 …
-
-
Yes i think the x% (ie 2%) is not "too" arbitrary but it is quite arbitrary, it is arbitrary. And I am not "being semantical" I think you came to me for semantics (Not saying you are accusing me, just being clear because I don't like semantic based debates etc ;p )
-
Yes maybe not semantics but slight miscommunication :p (I didn’t mean measuring for measuring’s sake or used in isolation, measuring here is with the clear intention of targeting)
-
I think you haven't understood why its important you don't say it the way you did.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

E.g. if your currency has a one-to-one peg to a price signal X, doesn’t that mean a zero rate of inflation w.r.t. X?