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
After nine days of holidays for the Lunar New Year, government agencies and companies are to reopen for operations today, including the Legislative Yuan. Many civic groups are expected to submit their recall petitions this week, aimed at removing many Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers from their seats. Since December last year, the KMT and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) passed three controversial bills to paralyze the Constitutional Court, alter budgetary allocations and make recalling elected officials more difficult by raising the threshold. The amendments aroused public concern and discontent, sparking calls to recall KMT legislators. After KMT and TPP legislators again
When viewing Taiwan’s political chaos, I often think of several lines from Incantation, a poem by the winner of the 1980 Nobel Prize in Literature, Czeslaw Milosz: “Beautiful and very young are Philo-Sophia, and poetry, her ally in the service of the good... Their friendship will be glorious, their time has no limit, their enemies have delivered themselves to destruction.” Milosz wrote Incantation when he was a professor of Slavic Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. He firmly believed that Poland would rise again under a restored democracy and liberal order. As one of several self-exiled or expelled poets from
In competitive sports, the narrative surrounding transgender athletes is often clouded by misconceptions and prejudices. Critics sometimes accuse transgender athletes of “gaming the system” to gain an unfair advantage, perpetuating the stereotype that their participation undermines the integrity of competition. However, this perspective not only ignores the rigorous efforts transgender athletes invest to meet eligibility standards, but also devalues their personal and athletic achievements. Understanding the gap between these stereotypes and the reality of individual efforts requires a deeper examination of societal bias and the challenges transgender athletes face. One of the most pervasive arguments against the inclusion of transgender athletes
EDITORIAL CARTOON
RSS