Don't worry about the stock price plummeting, don't worry about work, don't worry about unemployment, because in ten years, money will be useless! Of course, this is not what I said, it is what Musk, the richest man in the world, said. Musk's voice just dropped, and the Nobel Prize winner in economics, Daron Acemoglu, directly replied: Since you think the money will be useless by 2036, donate your trillion dollars. Although Musk is no longer worth a trillion dollars because of the recent plunge in Tesla and SpaceX shares, he did not yell and replied directly: I just meant it. Surely many people have the same reaction as me. When it comes to the uselessness of money, if it comes from someone else's mouth, they must pick up the phone and report the fraud. But from Musk's mouth, he said it with reason and evidence. Many people really think that when the money reaches a certain point, it may really be useless. After all, he is the richest man in the world. How many interests can he have with the general public? Even if there were, Musk would not be able to do it if we had three melons and two dates in our pockets! Today, we understand why Musk is not tired of saying that money will be useless in the future. Musk's new bread is here as the richest person in the world. Musk's girlfriends are basically academic hegemony, and the people who work together are all elites from top universities. Therefore, Musk is surrounded by elites. He dares to challenge the monetary system of human society for tens of thousands of years, and also has a set of self-consistent logic. When he was interviewed by The Economist at the Texas Gigafactory, he gave a clear timeline: within five years, around 2031, the combined intelligence of AI will exceed that of all human beings. This also means that in the future, digital intelligence will be responsible for thinking, and robots will be responsible for working and landing. His cooperation, goods and services, will sell more and more. The logic here is a bit round, let's break it down in detail: digital intelligence is like the company's headquarters now, doing data analysis, reporting upward, and making decisions. In the future, this part of the work will be done directly in the computing power center. After the data intelligence determines the decision, it sends the command to the robot. Robots are like the current front-line employees, such as building factories, making products, and laying channels, mainly for execution and landing. Of course, if the digital intelligence assessment says that there is not enough manpower, give direct orders to the factory, and I will produce more robots. And the robot only needs to be charged, and this electricity can be obtained through solar energy. Then why do they work together to sell so many goods and services? Let's take chocolate as an example. The robot grows cocoa beans, cultivates them, fertilizes them, etc., and then pulls them to the factory. The robot processes them into chocolate, and then sells them to different channels. Because there are enough robots, the chocolate produced in the future will pile up, and everyone will become a price war. But because from farming to production, the cost is very low, chocolate will be produced in large quantities, until the amount is so large that the streets are rotten, even the warehouses can not be piled up, it is better to give it to the public directly for free, like chocolate products gradually no money, you can eat as much as you want. Of course, the house is the same. There are enough robots, there is no cost to build a house in the future, and the house is not worth anything. So Musk's logic is that because there is no cost for the production of robots, there will be more and more goods, and in the end, there will be more and more direct money. And the money you have is to buy food, buy a house, facilitate transportation, these things are free in the future, then why do you need money? To appease the public? Does Musk's theory sound reasonable? But Peter Earle, director of research at the American Economic Institute, retorted on the spot: wealth does not mean that scarcity disappears, it just makes scarcity change places. After all, land is scarce, time is scarce, and uncertainty itself is scarce - these are things that robots can't build, and they will always need to be priced in currency. In other words, even if there are too many goods to consume, land, scarce resources, and priority distribution rights will never be available to everyone. On a day when there are too many things to consume, who decides who to give it to first? On the other side of Musk's “Shared Prosperity” is a public panic about AI. In early July, OpenAI CEO Altman's home was hit by an attempted arson attack, and the suspect was charged with attempted murder. Police searched the suspect's home for a manifesto calling for the execution of executives and investors in the AI company. Threats against AI executives and data centers have risen seven-fold from the end of February to May this year. Source: entrepreneur So US tech budgets for security are skyrocketing this year. Source: entrepreneur And these threats are, from the root, ordinary people's fear of "AI job grabbing". As the richest person in the world and a leader in the field of AI, Musk's theory of common prosperity can indeed calm the uneasiness of many people to a certain extent. There are many opponents! But there are a lot of people who don't pay! Acemoglu debates directly with Musk on X. Since you say that money is not important, you donate money to charity, which shows that you have confidence in AI technology, and the public no longer need to worry about the influence of billionaires. When Gopinath, the former vice-president of the IMF, forwarded it, he also made up a knife, and the question was even more fierce: If money is really not important in 2036, then he may not have a trillion dollars to donate at all - so why is this trillion dollars worth today? This sentence is simply to use magic to defeat magic. If the future money is really worthless, then your current valuation is also a castle in the air! US Senator Bernie Sanders also made a fortune, saying that if the dividends of the productivity increase really need to be distributed by the government, then why is Musk now even opposed to adding a little wealth tax to himself? Source: Senator Forbes is really where the pain goes! You are even opposed to this wealth tax now, how can you be willing to donate your entire body value? Anyway, I don't know what everyone thinks. I think that the idea that money is not valuable is like Musk's proposal to immigrate to Mars in 2001. Until 25 years later, it still hasn't been realized. Do you agree with Musk's view that "in ten years, money is not worth money"? You can discuss it in the comments section.