Will AI Erase "Money"?—Musk's Vision for 2036 and the Skepticism Surrounding It

Elon Musk, one of the world's most influential technology executives, has once again made a bold prediction about the future.

His vision goes beyond simply saying "cash will disappear" or "transactions will become digital."

Musk suggests that if AI and robots can perform almost all jobs in place of humans and produce more goods and services than society needs, the importance of "money itself will diminish" in about ten years.

In today's society, most people work to live.

They buy food, pay rent or mortgages, cover utility bills, commute by car or train, and receive healthcare and education. Income is necessary for these, and people work to earn that income.

However, in Musk's vision of the future, this very premise collapses.

With AI taking on intellectual labor and robots handling physical labor, production costs will dramatically decrease. If a large volume of goods and services can be produced almost automatically, the society where humans "must work to live" might come to an end.

At first glance, this seems like the ultimate utopia brought about by technology.

But digging a little deeper into this story reveals significant questions.

Because "creating wealth" and "ensuring everyone receives that wealth" are entirely different issues.

A "Super-Mass Production Society" Created by AI and Robots

The foundation of Musk's thinking is the prediction that AI and robots will exponentially increase the overall supply capacity of society.

Currently, the prices of goods and services include a significant portion of labor costs.

In restaurants, it's the chefs and service staff; in logistics, it's the drivers and warehouse workers; in hospitals, it's the doctors and nurses; in companies, it's the programmers, accountants, and salespeople—all these human labors make services possible.

What if AI and robots could take over a significant portion of these roles?

Self-driving cars could run 24/7, robots could work in factories and warehouses, AI could create software, assist in diagnoses, draft contracts, and even provide education.

Once the system is established, the cost of producing additional goods and services could significantly decrease compared to now.

Signs of this can already be seen in the digital realm.

Software, videos, music, and text have very low duplication costs compared to physical products. The cost of creating text, images, videos, and programs is rapidly decreasing due to generative AI.

Musk's envisioned future is a society where this "world of extremely low marginal costs" expands from the digital domain to the real world through robots.

If automation progresses in food, logistics, manufacturing, housing construction, caregiving, and healthcare, theoretically, the amount of goods and services available per person could increase significantly.

This is where the idea comes in that "if scarcity disappears, money will no longer be important."

Why Do We Use Money in the First Place?

The important point here is that money is not just paper or numbers.

Money plays a role in regulating who can use limited resources and how much.

If there are only ten apartments in a prime location in central Tokyo and 1,000 people want them, not everyone can own one.

If a popular artist's concert venue can only hold 50,000 people, but 1 million want to attend, some method of selecting participants is necessary.

The same applies to beachfront land, rare natural resources, limited energy, popular tourist spots, and historical artworks.

No matter how advanced AI becomes, it cannot infinitely increase the Earth's surface area.

That's why there's a significant gap between "many goods becoming cheaper due to AI" and "money becoming completely unnecessary."

An analysis published in Forbes also points out this issue. Even if AI enhances productivity, finite resources like land, energy, critical minerals, and specific locations will remain. In other words, scarcity itself won't disappear; rather, "what is scarce" is likely to change.

The proliferation of computers didn't eliminate economic activity.

While smartphones have made information extremely cheap, the abundance of information has made human "time" and "attention" valuable resources.

The same could happen in the AI era.

As goods become more abundant, value might shift to other forms of scarcity like "location," "time," "authenticity," and "human experiences."

The Real Issue: "Who Owns the Robots?"

There is an even bigger issue.

Even if AI and robots generate enormous wealth, the question remains: who owns these AI and robots?

Suppose one robot can handle the work of ten humans, and AI can process the office tasks of hundreds.

If society as a whole owns these robots and AI, it would be possible to distribute the productivity gains across society.

However, if a few companies or investors own them, the situation is different.

Companies can produce a large volume of goods at low cost. Meanwhile, people who used to work lose their jobs and salaries.

This could lead to a paradox where society as a whole becomes wealthier, yet many people lack the income to purchase those goods.

This is the main intersection between Musk's "wealth" and the reality of economic systems.

The mere increase in productivity due to technology does not guarantee equal distribution of wealth.

The internet and smartphones have greatly enriched society, but their benefits were not distributed equally to everyone.

The same could very well happen with AI.

In fact, since AI can replace human labor itself, the gap between owners and workers might become even larger than before.

Musk's "Universal High Income"

In response to this contradiction, Musk has long suggested that a system like "Universal High Income," which goes beyond basic income, will be necessary in the AI era.

The idea is that if AI's productivity becomes very large, even if the government distributes cash to citizens, the increase in supply will outpace the increase in currency, preventing severe inflation.

However, there is an interesting paradox here.

To achieve a future where "money is not important," large-scale income redistribution may be necessary during the transition period.

In May 2026, the Washington Post reported that technology industry executives, anticipating mass unemployment due to AI, are increasingly emphasizing government income support.

This naturally raises the question,

"Who will bear the cost of that money?"

Is it taxation on companies that own AI and robots? Taxation on the wealthy? A system to share AI company profits with society as a whole?

As AI reduces jobs, the current tax system, which relies on wage income, will also be shaken.

In other words, when considering an AI society, tax systems, ownership systems, and social security systems may be more challenging than the technology itself.

Silicon Valley Investors Also Point Out "Politics as a Condition"

A reaction that symbolizes this is from renowned investor Vinod Khosla.

Khosla doesn't completely deny Musk's vision of the future.

In fact, he takes a rather optimistic stance on the possibility of an extremely wealthy society emerging due to AI.

However, regarding Musk's prediction that "money will not be important by 2036," he attached the crucial condition, "if politics allows for that wealth."

This is a very fundamental point.

Even if AI's capabilities increase tenfold or a hundredfold, the wealth distribution system won't automatically change.

Khosla himself has pointed out in past writings that without appropriate policies, AI could concentrate wealth among a small elite, leaving the majority facing economic instability.

In other words, both utopias and dystopias can emerge from the same AI technology.

What makes the difference is not the algorithm but the system.

On Social Media, Voices Say "Ten Years Is Too Soon"

The recent statement sparked significant debate on social media.

In a Reddit community focused on the wealthy, there were opinions questioning the timeline of "2036" rather than Musk's thinking itself.

One user, while not denying the possibility of a post-scarcity society eventually arriving, reacted by suggesting it might be "much further in the future than ten years from now."

This is relatively moderate skepticism.

They agree that AI will dramatically change society, but believe it's difficult to change the physical world so much that money becomes unnecessary in just ten years.

Another discussion pointed out that it is physically difficult for everyone in the world to own luxury cars or yachts, and that a society where necessities are abundantly supplied is different from one where all rare goods are available without limit.

On the other hand, there was a counterargument that "decades ago, a society with multiple TVs and computers in each household seemed unrealistic," suggesting that today's luxury items might become everyday items in the future.

This debate well illustrates the intrigue of Musk's prediction.

"Current rare items may not remain rare in the future."

However, "scarcity itself may not disappear."

"If Money Is Unnecessary, Why Have So Much Now?"

More cynical reactions were prominent in AI-related Reddit communities.

Here, voices sarcastically combined Musk's enormous wealth with his statement that "money will not be important in the future."

"If that's the case, can't he give up his current assets?"

"Is it convincing for one of the world's richest people to say 'money is not important'?"

These were the types of reactions.

Of course, assets in corporate stocks and cash are not the same. Moreover, believing that money's importance will decrease in the future does not logically contradict owning a company in the current market economy.

Still, there is a reason for such backlash.

People are wary not of the "future prediction" itself, but of who benefits during the transition to that future.

As the value of AI companies rises and the assets of those who own AI increase, workers lose their jobs.

Even if told "everyone will eventually become wealthy," it's not easy to accept.

The skepticism on social media stems from distrust of the ongoing concentration of wealth rather than future prosperity.

Is a "Society Where Work Is Unnecessary" Truly Happy?

Another aspect that cannot be overlooked is the meaning of work itself.

Currently, for many people, work is not only a means to earn a living but also a connection to society.

Through their professions, people recognize their roles, build relationships with colleagues and customers, and have goals.

If a society where "you can live without working" truly materializes due to AI, will humans be free?

Or will they suffer from the feeling of not being needed by society?

This is a problem that cannot be solved by economics alone.

For a long time, humanity has built social systems based on the structure of "study → get a job → earn income → live."

If AI disrupts this structure, the meaning of education will also change.

Society might shift from "learning to get a job" to "learning to discover what you want to do."

If work becomes a choice rather than an obligation, people might be able to spend more time on activities like art, research, sports, community activities, and child-rearing, which do not necessarily lead to high income.

The allure of Musk's vision of the future is not simply because money will disappear.

It's because it imagines a society where "you don't have to sell most of your life to live."

However, the Ten Years Leading to 2036 Might Be the Most Dangerous

Ironically, even if Musk's ultimate vision of the future is correct, the path to get there might be the most unstable.

AI begins to take over human jobs.

Yet, the production capacity by robots is not yet sufficient.

Goods and housing are not cheap enough to be free.

Meanwhile, human wages decrease.

Social security systems are not adapted to the new economic structure.

If such a period lasts for several years to over a decade, inequality and unemployment might expand "just before prosperity."

Technological change is fast.

Institutional change is slow.

AI models can change significantly in performance within months, but changing tax systems, education, social security, and housing policies requires lengthy political discussions.

That's why, more important than the question "Will money be necessary