We need to be precise, because the thought experiment is only interesting if we take it seriously. Money disappears. All of it, simultaneously. The coins, the banknotes, the digital balances, the numbers in accounts, the prices listed on goods, all of it simply ceases to have value or to be accessible. The physical tokens and the digital representations remain, but they carry no social authority. Nobody will accept them for anything.
This is not what happens in hyperinflation. Hyperinflation is a collapse in confidence in a particular currency, people stop accepting it because they believe its value will continue to fall. The thought experiment is different: it is the collapse of money as a concept. All monetary systems simultaneously cease to function.
What the first day looks like
The first hours are paralysis. Every transaction is suspended. The entire apparatus of modern economic exchange, which is built, at every level, on money, has no operating mode. Shops cannot sell, because prices have no meaning. Employers cannot pay workers, because payment has no mechanism. The logistics chains that deliver food to cities, the fuel supplies that keep transport running, the utilities that keep lights on, all of these are operated by people who went to work this morning because they expected to receive money for doing so.
They still know how to do their jobs. The knowledge has not disappeared. The water treatment plant still functions; the knowledge of how to treat water has not gone with the money. But will the water treatment plant workers continue to show up when the pay is gone? Will the lorry drivers keep driving? Will the farmers keep farming?
The answer, in the short term, is: most of them will, for a while, because they understand that the alternative is social collapse, and they live in the society. The immediate transition is not from order to chaos. It is from a clear set of incentives to a murkier set: duty, community, the desire for the world to keep functioning.
What replaces it, and how fast
Money would be reinvented within days. Not by governments or central banks, those institutions would be trying desperately to restore the old system, but by people in markets, in shops, in communities, doing what humans have always done when formal exchange systems break down: barter first, then informal tokens, then something that functions as currency.
Cigarettes. Fuel. Canned food. Gold, possibly, though gold's value is also partly conventional and its physical properties make it awkward for small transactions. Whatever is scarce, portable, divisible, and widely desired becomes a medium of exchange almost automatically, because the problem money solves, enabling exchange between parties who don't have exactly what the other wants, doesn't disappear when money does. The problem remains and generates a solution.
Within a week, informal currencies would be circulating. Within a month, formal mechanisms would likely be re-emerging. Within a year, something recognisable as money would probably exist again, possibly multiple competing versions, possibly with different properties than the system we started with, but functionally similar.
What the thought experiment reveals
The most interesting thing about the money-disappears scenario is not what happens in the immediate crisis. It is what the crisis exposes about the assumptions buried in ordinary life.
We assume that money measures value. The scenario reveals that money is a social agreement about relative value, and like all social agreements, it functions only while people agree. The actual value of things, their usefulness, their scarcity, the effort required to produce them, doesn't change when money disappears. What changes is our ability to efficiently compare and exchange them.
We assume that people work for money. The scenario reveals that people work for money insofar as money enables them to meet their needs. When money stops performing that function, the question becomes: what do people do to meet their needs when the normal mechanism isn't available? The answer is that they cooperate, share, negotiate, and sometimes exploit, the full range of human social behaviour, suddenly more visible because the monetary abstraction that normally mediates it has been removed.
We assume that wealth is a stable thing, held by people who earned it. The scenario reveals that wealth, as stored in financial instruments, accounts, or property prices, is also partly conventional. Its value depends on the systems that validate it continuing to operate. The physical assets, land, buildings, productive capacity, remain. The financial constructions built on top of them dissolve with the money that sustained them.
What we owe each other
The question in the summary is the one the scenario ultimately pushes you toward. In a money-less world, what do people owe each other? Money normally makes this abstract and depersonalised. You owe a nurse for treating you, but you pay in a currency that severs the personal connection, the nurse is paid by a hospital, the hospital by an insurer or a state, and your relationship to the nurse is mediated by all of this. Without money, the question becomes direct: what do we actually owe the people who grow our food, deliver it, treat us when we're ill, teach our children?
The answer we give in the abstract, "fairly paid work", turns out to be a way of postponing the question rather than answering it.
Disagree? Say so.
Genuine pushback is welcome. Personal abuse is not.
Related questions
