old paragraph:

    It can also be remarked that "bad" money, or the inverse of "good" 
or "ideal" money is basically a consequence of deficiencies on the 
part of governments and politicians of a sort relating to morals, 
virtue, or ethics. So it is arguable that the phenomena of "bad money" 
are essentially understandable via Machiavellian studies. And 
"rational expectations" and games of deception are relevant here. If 
the inhabitants of the principality
of a Machiavellian prince can well understand the prince's schemes 
relating to the issuance of money then they can strategically adapt 
optimally to the circumstances.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    
 
revised paragraph:

    It can also be observed that "bad" money, or the inverse of 
"good" or "ideal" money is frequently or typically a consequence 
of deficiencies on the part of governments and politicians of a 
sort relating to morals, virtue, or ethics. So it is arguable that 
the phenomena of "bad money" are in those cases understandable via 
Machiavellian studies. And "rational expectations" and games of 
deception are relevant here. If the inhabitants of the principality
of a Machiavellian prince can well understand the prince's schemes 
relating to the issuance of money then they can strategically adapt 
optimally to the circumstances.