> has much more to do with classism You're right but I think that's an unfair way to put the fact that two rich people can get a remedy from each other without

> has much more to do with classism You're right but I think that's an unfair way to put the fact that two rich people can get a remedy from each other without the law, but a rich person only gets remedies from poor people through the law. The better comparison is Airbnb versus CouchSurfing or TrustedHouseSitters. All three use unused space in your home in exchange for something of psychological and monetary value, including some things Paul Graham said were important to Airbnb - like the psychic pleasure of having guests over. The difference is that TrustedHouseSitters sitters and CouchSurfing surfers are disproportionately completely broke, so if they go and they break your rich person coffee machine, what are you going to do? Get money from the guest? You'll never use THS again. Retention is 0% after the first incident. The private equity firm that owns THS isn't going to make you whole, the insurance they give has a $1,000 minimum, the requirements are onerous, etc. When I break something in an Airbnb, I pay every time. When they fuck up the parking and I get towed, the Airbnb paid. So we both keep using the service. Michael Sandel talked big talk about Airbnb monetized something that used to be generously gifted, but he omitted the special math of how rich people exchanging stuff with each other results in that thing being utilized 10,000% more, simply because it is sustainable in the sense of people retaining and not hitting the home button, and he never really talked about, ironically, the lack of justice when people break or steal your shit and there is simply no remedy.