It seems like most people who have a hard on for the sharing economy seem to not notice that in order for something to be shared, it has to first be manufactured. And even if solar power gets to a point where capturing energy is vanishingly cheap, raw materials are still a thing, and someone has to extract them and turn them into finished goods. This author seems like a neo-Stalinist to me, and I wouldn't take him that seriously.
The article was a bit far fetched, but even accepting it on its face there are significant issues that aren't explored. Deciding what everyone 'gets' to share as part of a no-work system is a huge unresolved issue. Most would argue that you shouldn't be able to have cigarettes. But they would not argue against wine and beer. There's no difference eventually. Lands that could be used to grow crops to feed the hungry could be used to grow grapes and hops and tobacco. Choose one and lose the other. Even if a machine is doing all the work and we're just left to consume the approved list of shared goods, who decides what is on that list has all the power in the system.
Right, so you start bribing the decider with some of your allotted resources to get access to others, and OMG we have a black market. Who'd have thunk it? I actually agree with him (to some extent) here: However, I totally disagree with his prognosis. I think it basically means that FB, Twitter and the like have vastly inflated share prices, and eventually they will have a reckoning. But then, what the fuck have FB, Twitter and Instagram ever made? Nothing, to put it bluntly. They are easily replaceable compared to say, GE or even Apple. It's a big leap to say that because some internet companies have a shitty, unsustainable business model, that we're seeing the end of capitalism....who decides what is on that list has all the power in the system.
...information is corroding the market’s ability to form prices correctly. That is because markets are based on scarcity while information is abundant. The system’s defence mechanism is to form monopolies – the giant tech companies – on a scale not seen in the past 200 years, yet they cannot last. By building business models and share valuations based on the capture and privatisation of all socially produced information, such firms are constructing a fragile corporate edifice at odds with the most basic need of humanity, which is to use ideas freely.
This is the point where I started skimming. It's obvious nonsense, unless you are talking about prices for information. The Information Age has indeed reduced the cost of getting data about, say, poverty rates, to a negligible level. Prices are information. More information means better, more uniform pricing. Remember renting a car at the airport without a reservation, or walking into a hotel to ask the rack rate? Ever checked a price on Amazon while standing in a Best Buy? Joy. They created joy. What did Shakespeare make? Bruce Lee? mk?information is corroding the market’s ability to form prices correctly. That is because markets are based on scarcity while information is abundant
what the fuck have FB, Twitter and Instagram ever made?