Here we can return to the understanding that money has the practical value of creating games for traders. These are games with transferable utility, but if the money were not available, the game of the traders would be a game without transferable utility and thus naturally a game with less efficiency with regards ot the possibilities for the participants to maximize their combined gains.~Ideal Money

In regard to The Bargaining Problem which is really just looking at a trade without money and the same trade WITH money, it can be pointed out there is the assumption of “Ideal Money” (money that has a stable value over time). Or in other words, money is not there and then, all of a sudden, in the other trade it IS there.

From another view we say/see Nash’s problem/solution doesn’t involve time, or a allow for “time” in which money can “degrade” (truthfully this is unacceptable since science/economics doesn’t even really accept the possibility of a money that doesn’t degrade in value over time).

Furthermore, his solution/problem is not so easily related to the real world because in order to make use of money, to properly use it as a tool, rather than have it as only naturally evolving, we must understand how to issue (inject) the currency properly in relation to the problem we wish to solve (in the bargaining problem we are talking about optimizing trade).

In regard to issuing a currency, if we are familiar with Nash’s 20 years of talks and lectures on the subject of “ideal money” we would know this is exactly what Nash has been studying and explaining (country to country). How to properly issue an e-currency (what parameters etc.) and how to bring about a stable currency.

He is VERY explicate.

Now it can quite easily be shown that when introducing money that is not of stable quality, trade is not optimized in comparison with Ideal Money. This is because the uncertainty of the quality perturbs the players ability to come to (or more importantly selfishly arrive at) the optimal solution.They can’t properly valuate things.

We certainly have the math to show this. If I have made my point, we should be able to see the importance of this argument.