The Meeting Place

The problem with a sharing economy

shared economy illustration

This glimpse of the future was crafted by: John Mcguire and Jody Boshoff

For many of us, the concept of ‘sharing is caring’ was introduced more as an ominous warning than a sweet adage in the home (especially when we happened to be holding the last cookie). But all motives aside, the message seemed to have got through to this generation; with an annual infusion of $15 billion into the global market, the sharing economy seems to be a case in point that spreading the love literally pays off.

These days, just about everything can earn you a quick buck if you’re smart about it. That’s what Judy learned when renting out an empty boardroom on pivotdesk to Craig who needed the space. Of course, Craig has been saving money and making friends through, whilst renting out his own apartment on Airbnb. Craig’s guests are currently spending the day exploring the city by bicycle, thanks to Liquid’s peer-to-peer bike share programme. And with dog lover, Bridget, on the job, the couple can rest assured that their beloved Baxter is in good hands with DogVacay while they’re away.

Down the road, a single mom is using the money she made from selling those dusty fabulous heels on Postmark to rent Kim’s ladder that she found on Snapgoods. And tomorrow Kim will heed Craig’s request on TaskRabbit and take an Uber to the other side of town to prepare the apartment for the next round of Airbnb users. Six degrees of separation just became four in this new economy of collaborative consumption.

In one way, it’s simply fabulous; the sharing economy cracks open fresh value on those underused assets around the house. Although, in another way, is the concept risky and our intrepid entrepreneurs have just not realised this yet? 

The prolific pop-ups of sharing platforms are generally touted as ingenious, but do we have to acknowledge that we’re realistically still in the honeymoon stage. This process has to see the whole cycle scoped through – from macroeconomy to public policy – if we are to grasp its long term impact on society. It’s a robust debate that economists, policymakers, Craig – even Baxter – need to weigh in on.

Helping the planet
Our future cities are faced with a dizzying dilemma. According to a 2014 UN report, two-thirds of the world population will be urbanised by 2050. Considering that another 2.5 billion people will have joined the human race by then, we have a serious case of imbalanced supply and demand on our hands. Naturally, any opportunity we have now to minimise our planetary wear and tear is welcomed. That’s where the sharing economy can offer a brilliant alternative.

study conducted by the Cleantech Group found that the fewer resources spent on travellers using home-sharing companies has resulted in 66 per cent less CO2 emission than hotel-based travel (including hotels that have earned five-star efficiency ratings). Home sharing has all kinds of other spin-off benefits, ranging from less food waste to higher recycling rates to significant savings in water. Car sharing also contributes to lightening the carbon load: according to a UC Berkeley shared-use vehicle survey, every one car made widely available for sharing takes at least 10 off cities’ congested freeways.

Each innovation seems to have us breathing a little easier, loosening the grip on our cities’ necks and helping us to speak a new language of inventive opportunism.

Mind the gaps
But there’s a flip side to the coin. The sharing economy is a fundamentally viral industry and, as such, it predominantly goes unmitigated and unchecked. The digital economy is evolving so fast it is outpacing the rate at which our policy makers can catch up.

Car-sharing network gurus like Uber and Lyft, for example, are generally not yet adhering to the same taxes and insurance standards that taxis uphold. Accommodation for disabled passengers is generally sporadic; contractual obligations are not articulated; and in some countries it’s debatable whether drivers even make the minimum wage. Those subscribing to these platforms have to weigh up the privilege of making a buck on the side at their convenience versus the cost of being thrown in the cold if anything goes wrong.

The same goes with online hospitality. Startup giant Airbnb has booked over 80 million nights across 191 countries since its 2008 inception. But many of those homes or venues may not be situated or designed to anticipate the challenges of noise, congestion, and waste, and neighbours are occasionally (and understandably) irritated about the additional infringements on their privacy. While hotels are taxed and frequently inspected for health and safety, Airbnb hosts are not yet facing such inspections.

Some city residents are now crying out for stronger regulation while, at the same time, many of their neighbours are greeting their ubers with open arms. Cities such as Seattle, who were already feeling the housing crunch before online hospitality entered the scene, now have to compete with the new breed of Airbnb entrepreneur who buys up accommodation for short-term rental purposes only. The San Francisco property market has sky rocketed, thanks to the influx of vacation rentals overtaking the city’s scarce housing inventory.

The big picture
All of it begs the question, is the sharing economy actually benefiting the economy at large? 

Many would say it is, as even Granny can now find her inner entrepreneur and make her pension stretch. Yes, intrepid entrepreneurs are availing themselves of the new sources of revenue they can leverage out of their existing unused assets, but the warning to existing traditional businesses is that they are tapping into a customer who is dissatisfied and disgruntled with the current business models. And therein lies the wake-up call to those awake enough to heed it.

Shareable founder, Neal Gorenflo, would argue that these unregulated ventures are having a disturbing impact on the future socio-economic fabric and flow of our neighbourhoods and cities. He refers to Uber and Airbnb as ‘Death Star platforms’ that will eventually outstrip all facets of traditional competition.

Whatever side of the fence you’re on, you can’t deny the fact that Pandora’s lid is wide open and off its hinges. Consumers now want choice. They are tired of faulty and antiquated services that call the shots and cripple creative mobility by clinging to the past. They seek the personal independence and disintermediation that mega start-ups like Uber and Airbnb defend. ‘Death Stars’ they may be, but ingenious opportunists who simply saw the gap and took it, they are as well.

At either end of the debate, the message is consistent and clear: business, beware. Those who fail to listen and to see what their customers actually need, disregarding the invitation to innovate, may very well be ‘ubered’ some day. In a sweeping digital paradigm that stops for no one, there will only be winners and losers. And businesses that believe they are immune to disruption are probably already on the way to being disrupted. They just haven’t got the memo yet.

The debate is rich and all too early to draw solid line conclusions. Contrary to criticism, the growth of the sharing economy is probably not going to be a case of capitalistic ‘checkmate’ where Uber and their cronies take all. More likely, there’s room for different players on the board. But traditional business will urgently need to catch up if they want to stay in the game. Should they stand around and wait for regulations to evolve and tighten the reigns, they will probably be too late. 

(Aurecon’s award-winning blog, Just Imagine provides a glimpse into the future for curious readers, exploring ideas that are probable, possible and for the imagination. This post originally appeared on Aurecon’s Just Imagine blog. Get access to the latest blog posts as soon as they are published by subscribing to the blog.)

What do you think about the sharing economy? Would you prefer to save money at the outset or have these businesses pay taxes that may see the cost of services increase? 


The sharing economy is misnamed . It is the ability of capitalism to continually renew and shake up entrench monopolies or quasi monopolies like taxi industry which relies on poor drivers with no rights .Indtead you have people particularly young mothers running their own business and setting their own hours . 

Good on the young uns for embracing Entrenprenuership 

instead of the old Socialism of Corbyn Shorten . 

Labor’s version of equality is punish talentThe Australian12:00AM July 26, 2017Save200Brisbane

I had the great pleasure of attending a 60th birthday and a wedding in the past week, at which numerous young adults made speeches. They celebrated family, love and loyalty, and, yes, exuded success. 

They were superb. Australia, your future is in good hands. These young adults will continue our great good fortune, despite the worst efforts of cringe-worthy government decisions.

And cringe-worthy government decisions are all around. Tony Abbott’s cringe was to impose a temporary levy on the top marginal income tax rate. This measure, to address the deficit, gave licence to those who think that government — that is, other people — have a right to your money. Abbott gave licence to class envy.

This error, on the part of a Liberal leader, was so inexcusable as to be politically fatal. To this point, Malcolm Turnbull has made no such error. Mind you, his bank tax came close because, among other things, it gave licence to the execrable South Australian Labor government to do the same.

As to the alternative government, Shorten Labor is moving unerringly left. More cringe-worthy government decisions await.

Bill Shorten is running on inequality. For this, read class envy. The only way to satiate class envy is to tax those who have and give it to those who have not.

The consequences, however, are that talent is punished and bad decisions and behaviour are rewarded. And remember, the talented can leave Australia, others cannot. Shorten runs the risk of telling talented young Australians that it is not worth getting ahead in Australia.

Egalitarianism in Australia must be the “have a go” version, not the “screw the rich and talented” version.

My old colleague Graham Richardson supports the Shorten agenda on inequality and contrasts the circumstances of the wealthy man and the single mother living out of a car as proof of inequality. To which we are entitled to inquire: what is the relationship between the two? So far as we know, absolutely none.

Unless the rich man was in a relationship with the poor single mother, he is no more responsible for the mother than any other ­citizen. He will, however, by dint of our highly progressive taxation system, have already contributed to her parenting payment, should she be in receipt of one, helped pay to chase support from the absent male partner, if he has failed to do so, and helped pay for numerous other forms of government ­assistance.

So, why do we throw in these illustrations inferring that the rich cause poverty? They do not.

While family is the first call for help, in Australia the rich pay the bulk of taxes, the poor receive the bulk of taxes, and charity picks up the rest: it has been so for decades.

This scenario was the subject of a thoughtful speech last week by Human Services Minister Alan Tudge, in which he remarked that “the formula that worked in the past of continual increases in welfare and further services will not provide the step-change improvement needed to address modern impoverishment”.

Modern impoverishment, as he calls it, is attributed to “family breakdown, worklessness, drug and alcohol addictions, education failure, and indebtedness and lack of financial capability”.

If the rich man did not cause the single mother’s plight, who did? Best not go there … it gets very personal and very judgmental. Better to think about what to do to prevent her plight.

Poverty is intergenerational. It runs in families, and relatively few at that. Indeed, the minister has to tell the full story about the families who collectively cost the taxpayer dearly. They require serious and prolonged intervention.

We can intervene to help, we should intervene to help, but at the right time and in the right way. And for goodness’ sake, let’s not be squeamish. The taxpayer is not responsible for bad choices and bad behaviour. The taxpayer is entitled to say so.

To intervene or not to intervene is not the great schism between left and right any more — both sides are at it. The purpose and effectiveness of the intervention is what counts. Labor’s inequality gambit blames the rich: it makes no pretence of understanding the cause of poverty. And Liberals have lost their ability to inspire the aspiring classes.

The young and gifted become the rich of tomorrow. Praise them, don’t tax them more, and don’t blame them for others’ misfortune. I want to witness more great speeches.

Gary Johns is author of No Contraception, No Dole.

I can agree with some of what you say here, but I don't agree that Shorten is running on inequality should be read as ''class envy''.

There are degrees and qualifiers in everything. Certainly, there is some truth in claims that modern poverty is attributed to ''family breakdown, worklessness, drug and alcohol addicition, educational failure etc.'' But what causes these problems? To what extent does crisis, trauma, inherent disadvantage, denial of opportunity, being the victim of gross injustice, etc. contribute to the stated causes of modern poverty?

It's entirely possible the rich man IS responsible for the single mother's plight - if he impregnated her for his own pleasure and then dumped her. Or maybe his failure to ensure safety in the workplace resulted in the accidental death of the man she intended to commit to as a life partner? What is sad is that in recognizing the plight of the woman who became a single mother through crisis, we opened the way for others to become dependant single mothers by choice. And now all single mothers are branded with the same branding iron.

''Poverty is intergenerational. It runs in families." Yes. But where does it start? Perhaps society's failure to adequately provide for the widow or the injured war veteran resulted in the next generation being denied educational opportunity, or resulted in denial of health care that led to disability or incapacity? Perhaps the failure of society to ensure safety in the workplace led to the injured worker being unable to ply his trade? Perhaps the profitable implementation of machines denied the struggling worker the opportunity to work and earn?

Blaming the victim is a popular way to excuse greed and selfishness and to indulge demands for reduced taxation. Cutting welfare is the easy way out, but it's socially destructive. Success should be applauded and rewarded, certainly. But our society has lost perspective. We should be reminding the public that the well-to-do DO typically access a greater share of national resources. We should be remembering that the wealthy businessman relies on the right to use the labour and skill of the struggling worker and to pay for it at far less than it's actually worth, in order that the capitalist model can work and the businessman can profit. At what point does contributing labour at less than it's actual worth entitle the struggling worker to decent support in sickness, misfortune and old age - funded by those who gain most from this sacrifice? At what point do we truthfully acknowledge that it's morally reprehensible and socially and economically destructive to allow the wealthy businessman to increase his profits by replacing labour with technology, leaving the worker with no access to an opportunity to work and earn?  We have 23% real unemployment in Australia when underemployment is properly recognized. At what point do we stop blaming poverty on people ''refusing to work'' and acknowledge that we need to ensure fair opportunity, and provide decent support for those disenfranchised by economic change?

The key problem with our current system is not that our welfare system is too generous or too indulgent, but rather that it is focused on extending ''a hand out'' rather than ''a hand up''. It indulges the lazy, the irresponsible, the dishonest and the manipulative. It harshly punishes the less advantaged who genuinely strive to improve their lot. It is, in fact, so harsh in its dealings with those who strive that many simply give up and resign themselves to a life on welfare because the cruel system has made it just too hard to escape the poverty trap. And having been persuaded that their situation is hopeless, who could expect that they would communicate anything other than that a life on welfare is the best solution for their offspring?

It's easy to attribute blame in ways that ease the conscience of the priviledged. It's far more comfortable for the privileged to blame the poverty-stricken for their plight. But the truth is that our society has strayed too far from a fundamental principle of capitalism - the progressive taxation system that was intended to balance the inequity that is inherent in a capitalist society in which circumstances and natural abilities play a major role in the capacity of individuals to succeed. We have created a welfare system that suppresses and denies opportunity, rather than one that supports and lifts. And having done so, we assume that harsher penalties for dependancy rather than greater support for those seeking ways to be less dependent will reduce the cost of welfare.

In our ongoing rants about the cost of welfare, we have forgotten what welfare is, and ignored the truth of who most benefits from it. For it's not a pension cheque that constitutes welfare. It's access to the social and economic benefits that improve one's happiness and comfort. By that definition, those cashing in on negative gearing and superannuation tax concessions access far more welfare than the single mother or the struggling job-seeker.

By all means praise the young and gifted, and don't blame them for other's misfortune. By all means condemn bad behaviour that challenges society's capacity to support the needy. But equally show empathy for the less advantaged and don't blame them for their poverty.

Shorten is right. Growing inequity IS a major problem, and one that needs to be addressed. World leaders everywhere have acknowledged this fact and expressed concern for the social and economic consequences of failing to address it. But to address it successfully, we need to stop blaming the victims and look below the surface to identify the real causes of poverty and to find ways to empower the poverty-stricken to lift themselves up.

Taxing those who can afford to contribute more to social and economic health is NOT blaming them or punishing them for the misfortune of others. It's merely acknowledging the need for overall social and economic health and that those who enjoy greater WELFARE in our society can and should contribute more to the overall health of the society that has endowed them with such rich opportunity to strive, achieve and prosper.

There should only be one welfarepayment . Giving money to those that need it . 

The current system of. Middle class welfare is unsustainable and taxing our young successful ones at half their wages is a recipe for stagnation . 

Our pensioners are living in poverty whist the. Middle  class receive family tax credits , ( thank you Mr Howard) Free GP visits, etc etc . 

The answer is not the tax and spend of Socialists like Shorten .  

But frugal governments that do not involve themselves in business that free enterprise can provide . 

And technology that will continue at a faster and faster pace to provide goods and services at a cheaper and cheaper price . 

Lokk at other posts such as the future is here ..

Brocky, needs-based welfare is an appealing concept that has been proven NOT to work, sadly. It suppresses, discourages, punishes, and destroys hope, because it declares that you only get help if you are needy and the instant you are able to do something to temporarily relieve your need, no matter how transient the relief, you will suffer deprivation. So you stay needy! And you pass on to your offspring the knowledge that staying needy is the only solution to surviving in a cruel world.

I agree that middle class welfare is unsustainable and taxing our successful young half their wages is certainly a recipe for stagnation - but that NEVER HAPPENS. Nobody pays half their wages, or anything remotely close to half. The 45c in the dollar tax rate (still NOT HALF!) only applies to earnings OVER $180,000 A YEAR. We are being sold a pack of lies designed to drive sympathy for the well-to-do and hatred of strugglers.

The solution to the problem of welfare is a system that enables people to lift themselves up and rewards them for doing so. To a degree, that requires welfare to the less needy, to ensure that they don't suffer penalty for succeeding. But the real focus needs to be on ensuring that everyone has enough to achieve a decent lifestyle and is presented both with opportunity and assistance and support to take advantage of opportunity.

Needs-based welfare will fail every time, driving growing poverty. We need to address the root causes of poverty. And sadly the root causes can't be addressed while we focus on preserving privilege. While we tell the fellow who just taught himself building skills and build a magnificent home for his family, and loves carpentry, that he can't be a carpenter - ever - because he didn't complete an apprenticeship when he was young and he can't afford to now that he has a family, we preserve the privilege of carpenters and condemn a deserving man to hardship and frustration. Then we question why he resigns himself to poverty and a life drawing welfare, and tells his kids its an unfair and cruel world and they shouldn't bother to strive for a better life because it's hopeless. We make education hideously expensive and hard to access, and then we tell people they need to get an education and a better job to own a decent home. 

I know about intergenerational poverty. I grew up in poverty and was denied education and opportunity because society deemed that after my father gave his life in defence of this country, his widow and child should be condemned to bare survival on a miserably small pension and branded ''charity cases''  My partner grew up in poverty and suffered abuse and hideous deprivation in an institution because his father gave the best of himself in war and when injuries stopped him working, his children were taken away ''to relieve the strain on the family'' and never allowed to see or hear from their parents again. We escaped poverty, but we had to cheat the system to do it. I hated that. I wanted to be honest. I detested being forced to learn to be manipulative and deceiptful, but it was the only way. When we tried honestly, we were bashed down - again and again and again. I recall once applying for a NEIS grant to start a business. We were disqualified because we had taken casual work when it was available. Only those who had done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for 2 years were deemed eligible, because they were ''needier''. Guess what? The businesses they started failed. Who would have guessed that would happen? That's what happens when you focus welfare on need.

We can't stop middle-class welfare, or upper class welfare either, because welfare is benefit that enhances well-being. Opportunity is welfare. Tax concessions are welfare. Access to public resources is welfare. Education is welfare. The right to hire people at rates less than their actual productivity is welfare. The people who get the most welfare are the privileged, and in a capitalist society, that will always be the case. So we need to extent a fair and equiable level of welfare to the less privileged to maintain balance and retain incentives to strive. And that's why we have to address inequity. We have to restore a reasonable balance in order to keep society healthy and let the economy grow. And yes, the well-off DO have to pay more tax. They can well afford to, and clearly the nation needs them to in order to recover from our current heavy debt situation. Nobody has EVER proposed taxing half anyone's income - although the poor actually pay a very disproportionate share of overall tax because of indirect taxes. Some of them may come close to paying half their wage, given 0 income tax concessions for super contributions, no access to other tax concessions such as CGT and negative gearing, and the need to spend - and thus pay indirect tax on - every cent of their income. No wonder some throw up their hands and declare a life on welfare is preferrable! 

We've got our priorities all wrong in this society, but reverting to needs-based welfare and ranting that the successful shouldn't pay high taxes won't fix anything. We DO have to address inequity, however uncomfortable that might be for the greedy and selfish priviledged who, sadly, are unable to acknowledge the WELFARE they enjoy.







Rainey you speak of a bygone age. The idea that you can tax your way to prosperity is deader than the dodo . 

T suggest that we give welfare , which is simply a transfer of wealth from one sector to another to those o notin need se  is in one sentence everything that is wrong with socialism . 

The new era being led by our entrenpeneurial young ( read above by Gary Johns a exlabor cabinet minister) is smashing down entrenched areas of costs ( see the future in here) The era of big Government and providers of all is over . 

New ways of distrubiting wealth are being tried without disencentivating the creators of wealth , Such as negative income tax and the living wage . 

We should celebrate that capitalism has lifted billions out of poverty and it's abilty to renew . 

 Billions have been freed from Socialisms dead yoke . 

The new capilism spilling out of Silicon Valley cannot be resisted you can put your fingers in your ears like Shorten or Turnbull . 

You can put your fingers in the Dyke ( so to speak ) 

like Merkel and Macron . You can be on the wrong page like Putin . 

But the wave is coming and it is greater prosperity for all,

"Our future cities are faced with a dizzying dilemma. According to a 2014 UN report, two-thirds of the world population will be urbanised by 2050. Considering that another 2.5 billion people will have joined the human race by then, we have a serious case of imbalanced supply and demand on our hands. Naturally, any opportunity we have now to minimise our planetary wear and tear is welcomed. That’s where the sharing economy can offer a brilliant alternative."

So does this mean the next 'share' will be the neighbour's kids? Say by limiting every second 'family' to procreation and allowing the birth of just one child (between two 'families) which is to be 'shared' by others - for a fee - declared income to the tax man of course!




To my way of thinking "sharing economy" just represents a sophisticated  “bartering”  system..which is as old as the hills...but made more accessible with today's technology..

The main advantage about “bartering”.. whatever the method this case “sharing economy” is that it has a clear environmental benefit. The good is..each transaction made.. is one not reliant on something that’s newly made nor having reasonably good items we don't use anymore ending up as landfill. Another advantage.. it helps people who are short of cash to earn some by getting rid of things they no longer need...and we are all guilty of that.. I have bought things I've never used and then eventually give them away..

Having said the above..this  “sharing economy” has its drawbacks too for example:

Some argue it is unfair to people who earn through this system and takes away profit from businesses and if you’re a small business..that hurts. Sharing economy also incurs loss in government revenues and we know when that happens there is also a loss in some form of infrastructure..

We know from various news reports recently this sort of online “bartering” can lead to fraud and scams. Some also argue that a sharing economy may be seen as a new type of “capitalism.” The reason being.. it uses a third party most of the time which makes most of the profits...

Whatever the case.. the concept is good at a base level in my opinion..but like a lot of things there is always room for corruption..


Trouble is Thea the days of "I'll give you a basket of home grown vegs if you put up this shelf" bartering are almost gone. Today's 'share economy' is now a $15b profit base and most people not paying tax on the income. And we are not talking about the odd person selling unwanted possessions here, rather its people who are actually running a business in renting out 'spare' rooms, parking spaces, cars, dogs, gardening equipment ..... you name it,  someone will be remnting it out - ooops I mean 'sharing' it!

Sharing economy is not bartering .

Kss what is the imbalance you refer too . Living in cities is great and prefered by the majority of the population . 

They take up very little room if the earths surface and better use resources . 

As the worlds population goes into decline , already started in most major countries we will have ample resources and goods provided by AI 

Brocky the quote was NOT mine but taken from the article.  I merely raise the prospect of reducing the population growth by 'sharing' a limited number of children! After all peole now share their residences, cars, parking spaces, even dogs, so why not children?

I stand corrected KSS why not indeed . 

I think there is a big opening for the Uberisation of Care. And for the whole area to be de institutionalised .

Education too 

Bit like wife swapping really 

Not really Raph unless you charge .

DEAR GOD,    i bought my own three children up,     i now live in peace,     please dont put any more children my way,   lol,      RAPHAEL has plenty time to himself,    and has LOTS of love to share,    he would LOVE a few kids,   

Hubby and I live on our own in a 4 bedroom home

My neighbour a widow on her own in a 4  bedroom home

One street away:

My  sis in law (widow) also in a 4  bedrom home

Her neighbour (a widow) also in a 4  bedroom home.

Another neighbour on the other side of sis in law...on her own...4  bedroom home.

This is just my neighbourhood (that I know of).


There must be heaps more in this situation.

15  bedrooms that could give someone a  bed.

I dont know the answer...but surely there is one.  None of those mentioned (apart from us) are contemplating moving.


Why not join Air B&B

No way in the world would I or any of the above be interested in that.


Great post Thea,  you seem to have a handle on this. The term  "sharing economy" sounds nice, and as the saying goes “sharing is caring” but if you look closely into this you’ll realise it’s not all it’s cracked up to be.

Who’s sharing what? Money is exchanging hands everywhere. For e.g Uber is now valued close to $70B, higher than companies like General Motors or Ford Motor. Not a lot of sharing going on there, many of these companies are really just fronts for  those with lots of money to opportunistically ride off the backs of everyday people, and in so doing they are causing a detrimental effect on economies.

Another example Airb&b, who’s sharing? They are charging a fee to rent out rooms in their house. Are they paying any tax, or is the introducer making the big bucks? Then they go off to buy another house and do the same thing, making it harder for a young couple to get their first home.

These guys operate under the guise of so called innovation and a way forward, but what they’re really doing is stripping away worker protections, trampling on wages and disregarding government regulations.

I believe, this “sharing economy” is a scheme to shift responsibilities from the companies themselves to the workers in this way reaping huge profits with low costs.

Balloons of Joy Joy ?

What a nonesensical post from Benny girl.

absolutely zilch understanding of basic economics , tax law and investment strategy 

It's lil miss Martha again, "absolutely zilch understanding of basic economics , tax law and investment strategy" whata laugh, maybe that's why he's where he is and you're sitting on your whoopie cushion all w/end, hahah. Get a life gal


And where is Raphy 

Sharing, as I see it this is when someone who has a surplus offers that surplus to someone else who has an insufficiancy.  This concept is not meant to be one sided, it is generally accepted by society that the kindness be returned if and when the shoe is on the other foot.

What we need is a new set of parameters that deal with modern needs.  One person drives their car into work every day and arrives and leaves at the same time each day, four people working in the same area and within the same time parameters offer to pay the parking fee and part of the running costs in order to solve a transportation problem.  This takes vehicles off crowded streets, cuts down on emissions, saves individuals a lot of money and provides more parking spaces in crowded cities.

Families pay hundreds of dollars a week for before and after school care for children, while a single parent with one child or an active retired person is living in the same street as the school, three or four families could pool together pay for that person to attain accreditation and save thousands a year.  

With the advent of social media tools like FaceBook and many other more up to date apps that I would have no idea about this sort of negotiation would be quite simple.  It seems people have lost the aptitude for negotiation and co-operation even when it is so evident that it is in their best interest.

So often we do things in a certain way because we see others do it and get an impression of normality, we may look like fools if we try and fail, but when something works out it is pure gold.


What do you think uber and air B&B is . It's sharing under utilised resources for a fee. 

Uber you pay as you go, you don't have control over prices so you can't plan ahead or negotiate a cost effective price.  Air B&B again pay as you go normally at a set price and for short term stays.

Both good examples of utilzing resources but both are limited and not really open to long term value adding through negotiation.  Now if you could negotiate a set price for a pick up and return trip each working day for a group of people, that would be more like it.  but as I understand it Uber can not offer a fixed price and the prices aren't set by the driver/operator.

You are given your uber price in advance which you either accept or not . The price rises and falls according to demand .

Like I said, no opportunity for negotiation, very rigid and only useful for short term, low volume usage in my case.

You negioate with your taxi driver ? 

Actually, I have negotiated a set price for a long trip on a couple of occasions with Taxi drivers, whether it was off or on the books I could not tell you, but they were not surprised when I asked.

What do you think uber and air B&B is . It's sharing under utilised resources for a fee. 



Sorry ex PS I really don't think you understand the new  sharing economy 

Maybe not but I do understand the basic idea of sharing as opposed to using assets to makea profit.  I doubt that most Uber drivers or Air B&B providors are doing so for any other reason than to turn a profit.  Not my idea of sharing at all.

If a child has a bag of lollies and gives some to their friend, that is sharing, if that same child offers to sell some of those lollies to their friend, they are engaging in a financial enterprise, defintley not sharing.

Maybe we now have a new definition of sharing, if your version is lt, then that is just sad.

I don't see anything sad about it . If we can use underutelized resources we all benefit

it allows the little man to share resources at his disposal .with others for a fee. 

Of course monopolies and giant corporations will fight with State help by regulations . 

But new technologies connecting people with people will win . 


This is how I understand the term “sharing economy” … as per the Investopedia definition mainly, the operative word being economy.

A sharing economy is an economic model in which individuals are able to borrow or rent assets owned by someone else. Sharing economies allow individuals and groups to make money from underused assets. In this way, physical assets are shared as services. Investopedia

An economic system in which assets or services are shared between private individuals, either free or for a fee, typically by means of the internet. Oxford

Ride sharing, apartment/home lending, peer-to-peer lending, reselling, co-working, talent-sharing… The sharing economy is sometimes called the collaboration economy. Forbes

Excellent explanation R&R 

 My daughter who is doing Law and international relations at ANU asked me today abuot an essay she has to do in commercial law . 

She has a choice of subjects to write on . 

My advise was o write on Blockchain or distributed ledger . Of which Bitcoin is the best k nown example . 

I must study it more myself but from what I have read it will effect all future transactions.