Even in a world of radical abundance, scarcity, tradeoffs, and uncertainty persist — and with them, the essential role of prices.
The notion that artificial intelligence at full bloom might eliminate the need for money reflects a deep confusion about what money is and does. Money is not merely a barter-avoiding convenience layered onto an otherwise frictionless world. It is a solution to fundamental problems of exchange, profound difficulties in coordination, and comparison of alternatives under scarcity. Even in a hypothetical future defined by extraordinary productivity gains and broadly collapsing prices, those underlying problems do not disappear. Instead they change form, and for as long as scarcity, tradeoffs, and uncertainty persist in any domain, so too will the need for money.
To begin with the most basic point: scarcity is not abolished by abundance. It is displaced. AI may dramatically reduce the cost of producing many goods and services, particularly those that are digital or easily replicable. But large swaths of economic life remain governed by constraints vastly beyond the power of computation. Land is fixed. Location is inherently scarce. Prime real estate in places like New York City or Tokyo will not become abundant simply because construction costs fall precipitously. The same holds for proximity to infrastructure, culture, or social networks. These are rival, excludable goods, and in such conditions, exchange requires a mechanism for allocating access. Money remains the most efficient one yet developed.
Time is another irreducible constraint. Human attention, especially in its highest-value forms, cannot and will not scale infinitely. The time of a skilled surgeon, an experienced trial lawyer, or a sought-after performer remains finite, tentative, and rivalrous. Even if AI were to augment their capabilities, it does not eliminate the fact that their attention must be allocated among competing uses. The same applies to live experiences: concerts, events, one-on-one advisory relationships, and so on, where presence itself is scarce. In such contexts, prices are not a relic — they are a reflection of incontrovertible limitations.
...read more at thedailyeconomy.org
pull down to refresh
related posts
Money only disappears in the hypothetical (and impossible) state of an evenly rotating economy.
This is the equilibrium state where everyone has settled into a precise pattern of behavior.
yeah, this piece missing the actual argument... of course money (in whatever form, #1485207) still balances the economy's remaining scarcity... but what's the income? And who's left to earn it? And what finite/valuable things can the non-expert surgeon still access?
OK, cool, the rest of us can become a support system for his (her?) extremely valuable services… I better learn to cook or be an (even better?!) yoga instructor.
I mean, fair… what is an economy but a humongous collaborative exercise in serving one another...
put this on a tshirt and sell it
not the world's stupidest idea
Thinking a bit about this one...
I think Earle is missing the point here a bit.
Those are all true, but missing the point: There’s no generation, there, no production… it’s all allocation, redistributed among those with preferential access…
It means only the skilled surgeon/experienced lawyer/performer can access the finite, valuable things.
It’s all well and good to say that the expert surgeon will be fine, even more valuable because of AI-enhanced output… but who’s going to pay for it? And the other half (likely, other nine-tenth) of the population who are not expert, top-of-the-line lawyers or surgeons, or rocket-ship inventors… how do they compete for access to the only rivalrous, finite, valuable things left?
This is only true if there's a good answer to "but who’s going to pay for it?" and "how do they compete for access to the only rivalrous, finite, valuable things left?"
It's not like robots need human surgeons. If people can't afford surgeons, then there's no demand for them.
https://twiiit.com/cb_doge/status/2045211835792855085