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
As it has striven toward superiority in most measures of the Asian military balance, China is now ready to challenge the undersea balance of power, long dominated by the United States, a decisive advantage crucial to its ability to deter blockade and invasion of Taiwan by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). America expended enormous treasure to develop the technology, logistics, training, and personnel to emerge victorious in the Cold War undersea struggle against the former Soviet Union, and to remain superior today; the US is not used to considering the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN)
The annual summit of East Asia and other events around the ASEAN summit in October and November every year have become the most important gathering of leaders in the Indo-Pacific region. This year, as Laos is the chair of ASEAN, it was privileged to host all of the ministerial and summit meetings associated with ASEAN. Besides the main summit, this included the high-profile East Asia Summit, ASEAN summits with its dialogue partners and the ASEAN Plus Three Summit with China, Japan and South Korea. The events and what happens around them have changed over the past 15 years from a US-supported, ASEAN-led
President William Lai’s (賴清德) first Double Ten National Day address had two strategic goals. For domestic affairs, the speech aimed to foster consensus on national identity, strengthen the country and unite the Taiwanese against a Chinese invasion. In terms of cross-strait relations, the speech aimed to mitigate tensions in the Taiwan Strait and promote the coexistence and prosperity of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in China and the Republic of China (ROC). Lai is taking a different stance from previous Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administrations on domestic political issues. During his speech, he said: “The PRC could not be the
National defense plans are generally focused on preparing to defend against the military aggression of an adversary. In the case of Taiwan, such plans center on China, which possesses a dramatically larger and more powerful military. However, a recent tabletop exercise conducted by the Taiwan Center for Security Studies and other institutions revealed several nonmilitary vulnerabilities in Taiwan, particularly in the areas of economics, cybersecurity and energy. The exercise, set in 2032 and simulating crises such as cross-strait tensions and global conflicts, demonstrated that modern conflicts often extend beyond traditional military aggression, underscoring the need for new defense strategies and continuous