rationalskepticism.org

Why am I delivering a dramatically oversimplified Economics 101 lesson? Because the original poster appears to need it and there was insufficient clarity in his original statements to divine his position in totality. I was trying to get him to engage in conversation, so perhaps he'd be involved enough to learn why his question was so misinformed in the first place or learn enough that he was satisfied.

I'm new here, so I though encouragement was a better option that ridicule.

Saying money is used because it hasn't failed yet implies that the idea of a neutral medium for exchange can fail. Individual currencies can fail, typically from hyperinflation or substitiution, tied to a broader economic failure or runaway monetary policy. In every case that I can think of, the old currency is either replaced by a new one (Hungary, Germany, Brazil, China, Zimbabwe) or revaluation/redenomination (post-Soviet era CIS nations). So when money 'fails', its replaced. By money.

For money to fail, the entire notion of fiat currency would need to have failed as a conceptual framework. The only way I can see that happening is global reversion to the gold standard or global financial collapse. The second might be more likely than the first, despite the wet dreams of some libertarian types and the Austrian School, but in either case we're most royally shafted.