4 ms·
I don't think the GP advocates a barter economy, rather he defines what sharing really is. If 50.000 people go to the stadium, there's a large chance close neig
by cornholio 13y ago
I don't think the GP advocates a barter economy, rather he defines what sharing really is. If 50.000 people go to the stadium, there's a large chance close neighbors go there so there's no point using four cars when they can use a single one. No economic product is generated but our lives are suddenly better, less congestion, less resources wasted, etc. So the sharing platforms should find these synergies, when they exist, and you should purchase a transportation service otherwise.
What they actually end-up doing is competing the incumbent services in a fly bellow the radar illegal operation which actually makes the taxi drivers themselves poorer while diverting most of the extra cash to the ring masters.
- jmzbond 13y agoCornoholio has captured my meaning well. Though to be fair, I do partially think that a barter economy in some cases could e better option. To tsotha's point then, I think this is especially true because of the technology that we have. In the original barter economies, it was difficult to find someone who had something you want in exchange for something you had, but now there are much more efficient ways to streamline that search process. As to the potential value, to tsotha's question, this is very philosophical. Some will see it as valuable, others will be terrified. For me personally, I like not being too abstracted away from what I'm producing or consuming. Gambling uses chips because chips are easier to give away than money. Using that logic, at least for me, giving away money is easier than trading something, especially if that something I have created and poured my energy into. The transaction without money then forces me to think about true utility and value, and would greatly discourage conspicuous and contrived consumption.