From their view, if there is no need to extract work from the average Joe, there is no need for the average Joe at all.

whatever [...] they think will eliminate the need to hire people, will provide instead

the problem is that whose who do that thinking want to enrich themselves and not provide for others. if that doesn't work, then they won't do it. so the question is, how do we get from the current situation to this life of abundance without letting the majority of people suffer in the transition. because that is hat will happen if we keep going as we are. less and less labor is needed, and the focus is on getting the money from those who still have an income while the rest are pushed into poverty.

i do not believe we will be able to make this kind of transition without a serious push in moral education. this can only work if we change our attitude towards those who can't find work.

personally though i do not believe we will ever need to eliminate work. there are so many worthwhile things we could do. i rather envision a future where the majority of jobs are in education, healthcare and research, almost everything else can mostly be automated. i believe humanity would benefit immensely if we took advantage of all of human potential instead of letting people stay at home.

> ... accounting isn't going anywhere. It has already been invented

> But, if this our future, then humans remain relevant, so there is no concern about job loss or anything of that nature.

Relevant as what? Serfs and accountants? Even short of that scenario, there is a big concern if the primary technology of redistribution (jobs) becomes far more scarce.

> If, however, some future plays out where people aren't needed to work anymore, there will simply be no need for trade.

People will still need raw materials and resources, and those are not evenly geographically distributed.

Time to fight for fertile land then.

Never mind history. There is no evidence of "money" replacing "direct trading" today, so there would be no need to go back in time. But obviously it wasn't meant to be taken so literally. The "between the lines" intent is understood.

Because of how society works? Because currency is even more inherent to society than literacy?

? how does one pay for a good, without money?

You just forget that the transaction part of consuming is just a portion of it. AI could provide bezos with everything material he'd need, just not the power and status. That's where your argument falls apart. We are social beings, and for those in power they won't be satisfied with the illusion of power. Consumption is the driving force that maintains power in capitalism. You could replace the system, but never the need for power humans have.