We have forgotten the true virtues of money. We commonly view it in purely instrumental terms — as a device that facilitates exchange and stores value over time. Compared with bartering, coins and paper currency are profoundly convenient, but money is more than just an instrument.
As Fyodor Dostoevsky famously observed: “Money is minted freedom.” It supports our existence as autonomous individuals in a decentralized economy.
However, the situation will be very different if we someday live in a world governed by an artificial intelligence (AI) endowed with complete information and infinite processing capabilities. Under those conditions, there might no longer be any role for money.
To understand how money sets us free, consider any chain of transactions. When we receive money, we are in control. It is up to us to decide whether to hoard it or to spend it on whatever we choose. Only money gives us that capability. Money, moreover, is universal. It allows you to buy anything, anytime, from anyone — and that seller increasingly can be located anywhere. This specific freedom comes not from wealth, but from the possibility of choice.
This choice must not be taken for granted, because payment instruments have always been susceptible to paternalistic interference. In the 19th century, some firms would pay their employees with scrip that was only accepted in company-owned stores. And nowadays, technology makes it possible to issue “programmable money” with a special purpose, limited use and even a pre-emption date. Such digital tokens could be used to prohibit “non-virtuous” consumption (such as alcohol or tobacco) by recipients of public assistance.
We need money because we live in a market economy, not a preprogrammed world. Holding money protects us against uncertainty. It has an “option value,” in economic parlance.
The demand for money increases sharply during crises, because people need to be prepared for all contingencies.
Now fast-forward to a future where machines organize, decide and execute all economic activities. They transact among themselves, credit and debit reciprocal accounts, and automatically ensure discipline and the enforcement of contracts. There is no failure and no default. Do we still need money?
Such a world is already partly in view.
A decade ago, Google chief economist Hal Varian said that “there is a computer in the middle of each transaction” across our digitized economy.
Many of our daily acts are automated, algorithmic trading dominates in many securities markets and payments are increasingly programmed.
If cryptocurrency advocates’ vision of the future materializes, “smart contracts” would govern financial intermediation in a universe of decentralized finance. Some people even suggest that, in conducting monetary policy, sophisticated algorithms could replace central bankers.
For now, though, we merely use the machines. Humans still make decisions as free agents, expressing preferences and acting on them. Central banks do not blindly follow rules. They make judgements after considering difficult tradeoffs, especially in times of crisis or when facing negative supply shocks.
In fact, in an automated economy with human control, money is more necessary than ever, but it must adapt now that digitization has collapsed distance and time.
Money, too, must be digital, taking the form of tokens on our mobile phones — an e-cash that can be transferred instantly across the world without having to transit through a complex web of accounts and counterparties.
A threshold would be crossed with AI. Some scenarios project a universe where AIs do not simply process information and execute commands, but also make decisions and even determine their own objectives. They would be the “agents,” acting on preferences that might not necessarily align with those of humans.
With these capabilities, an AI could take over the allocation of resources and the distribution of income. It would assess the millions of possible economic equilibria and identify the one it considers preferable. This vision of “techno-socialism” is very far from the model of a decentralized, free society. It would be a high-tech version of old-fashioned communist central planning.
Debates about the future of AI often refer to the “singularity,” meaning a point when AIs have the ability to improve and augment themselves, thus rapidly surpassing humans in all measures of intelligence. In this scenario, humans would no longer control their own destiny.
Will it ever happen? There are huge disagreements among AI experts, but money can serve as the ideal indicator. The best sign that AI has effectively taken over would be if money becomes irrelevant in economic life.
A moneyless world might be technically feasible, but whether it would be worth living in is another matter.
Jean-Pierre Landau is an associate professor of economics at the Paris Institute of Political Studies.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
RSS