4 ms·

I despise the whole sharing economy. I prefer the good old days where i own everything i use.

sabjut 5y ago
Maybe that's just not the resource efficient way going forward. Maybe in the future people will laugh at the idea of buying 2 tons of steel to sit around doing nothing for 95% of it's lifetime.
- echelon 5y ago
  I already hate not being able to repair my phone, own my music/movies, etc. I own my home so that I can do what I want with it, and I own my car so that I can take it off road, leave my stuff in it, and work on it. Rental services are bland as fuck. I can organize my music and movies way better than Spotify and Netflix so that it meets my exact preferences. No. I don't want to live in the rental economy future, and I find it hard to relate to those that do.
  - Mashimo 5y ago
    I own my home, it's an economic logical choice. Just like you I also have my music and movies as "real files" and not in the cloud. But renting a car that would show up at my door and can drive it self back? Man, that would be cool. Would just need it a few time per year.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- _carbyau_ 5y ago
  Not GP but I feel that renting/subscribing everything doesn't feel very secure. I'd like to believe a "rentier" future will empower renters with even cheaper options due to efficiency of utility. As you say, having a big chunk of capability sit there most of the time is wasteful in a sense. However it also feels like it entrenches the rich with further options of rent-seeking. And it doesn't take much cynicism to think that any benefits due to efficient use of resources will go to the owners pocket, not the customer/renter.
  - zbrozek 5y ago
    If you look at tool rental, it's usually cheaper to buy the tool at somewhere between a few days and a week of rental time. I don't expect any efficiencies to end up with the renter. It's so bad that it was cheaper for me to buy a wide format printer than it was to pay a print shop for prints to submit to the planning department.
    - vidarh 5y ago
      I suspect that is largely to do with frequency of use. To me it'd be worth a premium to not have to buy, store and dispose of something I know I'd rarely use, to the point that for some things I might well be fine with paying full purchase price if I can just avoid the hassle. Renting in those instances would be more about avoiding annoyances than saving money. At the same time I'd assume the amount of time specialized tools lay idle but lock up capital and storage space for providers of rented capacity means you need to recoup a lot of cost per rental event.
- choward 5y ago
  Sure, but with this you get the worst of both worlds. You pay to own some metal sitting around most of the time and then pay to use it.
MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
„You will own nothing, and you will be happy.“ - WEF
chmod600 5y ago
"Ownership", like "privacy", just doesn't make sense in the modern complex world.
- sidlls 5y ago
  Is this satire or sarcasm or something? Genuinely asking, as it is not clear to me.
  - hyperhopper 5y ago
    Almost certainly satire. The way I'd explain it, is both ownership and privacy can be boiled down to some simplified abstract terms to show that society benefits more when they are traded away for convenience or price. However, in practice and in history, this is not the case, and those tradeoffs almost always result in a worse quality of life and economic standpoint for the individual, and more profit, power, and control for the governments and corporations that took those benefits away from the people.
  - chmod600 5y ago
    It was satire but with more than a grain of truth to it. Meant to initiate some thought, but don't take it too seriously.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
phlo 5y ago
The _actual_ sharing economy is great. Your beef is probably with corporations that masquerade as part of the sharing economy in order to exploit regulatory loopholes (e.g. Uber, Airbnb). For an example of the actual sharing economy: I'm a member of a local cooperative that owns and maintains a fleet of ~3k cars, distributed across the country at most train stations and in many neighborhoods. For an initial deposit of $1k, "my car" is whatever I need it to be at that moment. If I need to transport furniture in the morning, it's a Mercedes Vito. For a leisurely drive in the countryside at lunch, it's an Audi convertible. And for a quick grocery run before stores close, a cheap Citroën C1 will do the trick. And because the whole thing is a cooperative, per-km prices are around what I'd pay if I owned any of the cars myself. Sharing is great. Regulatory arbitrage masquerading as the sharing economy, less so.
- eulers_secret 5y ago
  I know this is 9 hours old, but this is 100% not for me. I want to leave items in my car for tomorrow: my face mask, (previously) CDs and tapes, etc. I want to spend the extra money for 'grippy' tires on my car, or do other mods like use sticky notes on the dash. I want my seat to be in the same position I left it in: It can take a day or two to get it just right. I want to have the option to use a seat cover for comfort. I want to eat my lunch in my car: I control the climate, I control the music, and I can vape or smoke to my hearts content. It's mine to do that with. I want to put off unloading my vehicle after a long and arduous camping trip, It's already 8PM when I get home. It can wait for tomorrow, and doesn't cost me anything. I want to let my muddy dog jump into the back seats, I don't care if they get 'ruined', that's my choice about my property. I don't want a cleaning fee. Lastly, I want to know for sure my dog won't eat the used condom the last person left under the seat. People are animals, no amount of cleaning between uses can ensure cleanliness 100% of the time. But I can in my car.
  - phlo 5y ago
    That's fair. I can see the benefits in most of the things you listed. Chances are, this boils down to whether you regard your car as sort-of an extension to your home. I don't, so I'm perfectly happy to have _a_ car available to me at a moment's notice. I understand that many people do, and they'll prefer being able to own a car and really make it their own. The whole car sharing thing is also predicated on good availability of cars near where you need them. It works great for me, in an urban setting; it would be wholly useless if I lived somewhere out in the sticks. The point I want to make: SaaS, RegArb and the sharing economy are different things. If VW tries to charge you per-hour to use the software installed on your car, then let's talk about abusive software licensing. If Uber skirts regulations to muscle into the transportation market, let's frame the discussion around employment law and transport regulations. RegArb startups make it a habit of framing their business model as something else; and we're all better off if we don't fall for that trap :)
globular-toast 5y ago
Well this won't apply to you then since you never use the public highways anyway, right?

Maybe that's just not the resource efficient way going forward. Maybe in the future people will laugh at the idea of buying 2 tons of steel to sit around doing nothing for 95% of it's lifetime.

echelon 5y ago
I already hate not being able to repair my phone, own my music/movies, etc. I own my home so that I can do what I want with it, and I own my car so that I can take it off road, leave my stuff in it, and work on it. Rental services are bland as fuck. I can organize my music and movies way better than Spotify and Netflix so that it meets my exact preferences. No. I don't want to live in the rental economy future, and I find it hard to relate to those that do.
- Mashimo 5y ago
  I own my home, it's an economic logical choice. Just like you I also have my music and movies as "real files" and not in the cloud. But renting a car that would show up at my door and can drive it self back? Man, that would be cool. Would just need it a few time per year.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
_carbyau_ 5y ago
Not GP but I feel that renting/subscribing everything doesn't feel very secure. I'd like to believe a "rentier" future will empower renters with even cheaper options due to efficiency of utility. As you say, having a big chunk of capability sit there most of the time is wasteful in a sense. However it also feels like it entrenches the rich with further options of rent-seeking. And it doesn't take much cynicism to think that any benefits due to efficient use of resources will go to the owners pocket, not the customer/renter.
- zbrozek 5y ago
  If you look at tool rental, it's usually cheaper to buy the tool at somewhere between a few days and a week of rental time. I don't expect any efficiencies to end up with the renter. It's so bad that it was cheaper for me to buy a wide format printer than it was to pay a print shop for prints to submit to the planning department.
  - vidarh 5y ago
    I suspect that is largely to do with frequency of use. To me it'd be worth a premium to not have to buy, store and dispose of something I know I'd rarely use, to the point that for some things I might well be fine with paying full purchase price if I can just avoid the hassle. Renting in those instances would be more about avoiding annoyances than saving money. At the same time I'd assume the amount of time specialized tools lay idle but lock up capital and storage space for providers of rented capacity means you need to recoup a lot of cost per rental event.
choward 5y ago
Sure, but with this you get the worst of both worlds. You pay to own some metal sitting around most of the time and then pay to use it.

MrBuddyCasino 5y ago

„You will own nothing, and you will be happy.“ - WEF

chmod600 5y ago

"Ownership", like "privacy", just doesn't make sense in the modern complex world.

sidlls 5y ago
Is this satire or sarcasm or something? Genuinely asking, as it is not clear to me.
- hyperhopper 5y ago
  Almost certainly satire. The way I'd explain it, is both ownership and privacy can be boiled down to some simplified abstract terms to show that society benefits more when they are traded away for convenience or price. However, in practice and in history, this is not the case, and those tradeoffs almost always result in a worse quality of life and economic standpoint for the individual, and more profit, power, and control for the governments and corporations that took those benefits away from the people.
- chmod600 5y ago
  It was satire but with more than a grain of truth to it. Meant to initiate some thought, but don't take it too seriously.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

phlo 5y ago

The _actual_ sharing economy is great. Your beef is probably with corporations that masquerade as part of the sharing economy in order to exploit regulatory loopholes (e.g. Uber, Airbnb). For an example of the actual sharing economy: I'm a member of a local cooperative that owns and maintains a fleet of ~3k cars, distributed across the country at most train stations and in many neighborhoods. For an initial deposit of $1k, "my car" is whatever I need it to be at that moment. If I need to transport furniture in the morning, it's a Mercedes Vito. For a leisurely drive in the countryside at lunch, it's an Audi convertible. And for a quick grocery run before stores close, a cheap Citroën C1 will do the trick. And because the whole thing is a cooperative, per-km prices are around what I'd pay if I owned any of the cars myself. Sharing is great. Regulatory arbitrage masquerading as the sharing economy, less so.

eulers_secret 5y ago
I know this is 9 hours old, but this is 100% not for me. I want to leave items in my car for tomorrow: my face mask, (previously) CDs and tapes, etc. I want to spend the extra money for 'grippy' tires on my car, or do other mods like use sticky notes on the dash. I want my seat to be in the same position I left it in: It can take a day or two to get it just right. I want to have the option to use a seat cover for comfort. I want to eat my lunch in my car: I control the climate, I control the music, and I can vape or smoke to my hearts content. It's mine to do that with. I want to put off unloading my vehicle after a long and arduous camping trip, It's already 8PM when I get home. It can wait for tomorrow, and doesn't cost me anything. I want to let my muddy dog jump into the back seats, I don't care if they get 'ruined', that's my choice about my property. I don't want a cleaning fee. Lastly, I want to know for sure my dog won't eat the used condom the last person left under the seat. People are animals, no amount of cleaning between uses can ensure cleanliness 100% of the time. But I can in my car.
- phlo 5y ago
  That's fair. I can see the benefits in most of the things you listed. Chances are, this boils down to whether you regard your car as sort-of an extension to your home. I don't, so I'm perfectly happy to have _a_ car available to me at a moment's notice. I understand that many people do, and they'll prefer being able to own a car and really make it their own. The whole car sharing thing is also predicated on good availability of cars near where you need them. It works great for me, in an urban setting; it would be wholly useless if I lived somewhere out in the sticks. The point I want to make: SaaS, RegArb and the sharing economy are different things. If VW tries to charge you per-hour to use the software installed on your car, then let's talk about abusive software licensing. If Uber skirts regulations to muscle into the transportation market, let's frame the discussion around employment law and transport regulations. RegArb startups make it a habit of framing their business model as something else; and we're all better off if we don't fall for that trap :)

globular-toast 5y ago

Well this won't apply to you then since you never use the public highways anyway, right?