[Sherman Logan]

A world with “no money” need not be a dystopia. After all, money and prices are simply the most efficient method we’ve found for distributing scarce resources.

Scarcity is and of itself not a good thing, but a bad thing. The problem is that humanity has of necessity been organized since it began to develop organization essentially to divide up scarce resources.

When scarcity disappears, at least for many things, then how do we organize ourselves?

As the most obvious example, gaining access to the world’s knowledge used to be very difficult and expensive. Today it is utterly free. Doesn’t mean we use it any more wisely.

[RoosterRedux]

A world with “no money” need not be a dystopia.

Money is just a medium of exchange and there will always some kind of medium of exchange for goods and services and other assets.

[RoosterRedux]

Scarcity is and of itself not a good thing, but a bad thing.

I don't mean to pick on you, but you have made the most interest points here.;-)

Scarcity can be a good thing in that it can build character.

Like many of us, I had parents who were children of the depression. Their appreciation of the value of little things (like a hot cup of coffee and a good meal) were the products of scarcity...and were wonderful things to behold.

[AustinBill]

Correct. The biggest socioeconomic challenge of the 21st century for the planet (not just the U.S.) is the transition to a post-employment society. Since the start of the industrial revolution over 200 years ago the fundamental equation of the economy has been "labor = money". "Labor" is going to become obsolete as robotics and AI really take hold. That doesn't mean that people will be idle, just that the concept of a "holding a job" as a prerequisite for functional participation in society is going to go away because the economy no longer needs that.

It's clear that nobody is really preparing for this transition, which is why it's bound to be rough.