You keep saying this, but I don't understand how the exchange of goods would work.
There's no exchange of goods because there's no ownership. You're still thinking with scarcity and with an ownership-based society, rather than an access-based.
People have tried this system before and it has failed.
Can you point to where this has been done before? Because last I checked, the exact system I'm describing is bleeding edge and takes advantage of the latest tech. The actual economic model itself was used before the invention of argiculture, and it worked fine. And the economic model is also used for many online and web-based stuff.
Economics is a byproduct of human evolution.
Not at all. It's a byproduct of ownership and scarcity. We're past scarcity, and ownership is a construct that we can ditch.
What do you pay people if no money exists...
You're still thinking in mandatory labor and ownership. Once the system is in place, there's no need for forced labor. As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, 50-60% of jobs right now can be eliminated and/or automated. The remaining 40-50% can be eliminated/automated in the next couple of decades.
The real question is: how do people earn money in an environment with no work that needs to be done?
Money itself is actually an awful incentive. At best, it's motivates manual physical labor (all of which is almost automated) and it only motivates up to about $75k/year, which is the average standard of living in our 1st world country. After that, more money doesn't provide more incentive. And indeed you see that to be the case. Once people reach $75k/year, they don't really care as much about the money, provided they have access to things they need or want.
So really what you're saying is "how do you give people basic life necessities, if you aren't depriving them of it in the first place?" which is a horrible thing to do.
What you mean to ask is: "how do you motivate people to improve society once their basic needs are met?" which the answer is intuitive and obvious: they improve society so that they themselves can have more luxuries and enjoy a society that's better off.
As for the intermediate, it appears that something like UBI is useful for ensuring people don't starve during the switch.
You do not understand global politics at all do you...
Sure I do.
The only reason we have never been invaded in the US is because of our 2 ocean borders and insane military.
Actually, that's not true at all. Last I checked, many european countries have neither the ocean border nor the insane military, yet are doing fine. Like finland. Other countries have the ocean boarder and lack the insane military and are doing fine, like new zealand or japan.
We keep the peace not only in our own country, but extend the military of our allies.
Military isn't used to "keep peace in our country". Nor is there any reason whatsoever to have a military that's 10x larger than the next 10 countries combined. On top of that, we haven't been attacked by another country for the past few decades at least. And we haven't been attacked unprovoked since the founding of the country.
Cutting that would cause a void and lead to the overthrowing of our government which you have thought so hard of imagining.
Perfect. That's the goal. The government is one of the biggest things holding the country back. The legal system and the monetary system. The two biggest blockers of progress.
I'm going to guess you're 16 years old and be done with this.
And once again we arrive at ageist ad-hominems. No. I'm not 16, or 15. I'm well above any artificial age restrictions. But it's irrelevant. My age, gender, sexuality, race, etc. is entirely irrelevant to the conversation.
Again, just because you're locked into traditionalist thinking doesn't mean my points aren't correct.