[GiftEconomy] 'Emerges'? How about 're-emerges'?

[Duane Eareckson]

But the capitalist drive will not be extinguished. They will to "optimize" 
the culture of sharing for their profit, whether by persuasion, threat, or 
force, and they will find ways. Their hypocrisy, that they will not 
<i>share</i> their optimizations, is the glint which betrays the 
machinations to inject extraction in the network of cooperation.

The "central authority" will be the architects of the means of sharing. The 
means of sharing cannot be totally autonomous and will be organized, to some 
extent. Whereas a rising tide would lift all boats, in an ebb tide, someone 
will have to pay for the tugboat.

The most revolutionary force in the world will not go down easy.

Duane

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robin Upton" <robin2008 at altruists.org>
To: <gifteconomy at lists.gifteconomy.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 2:29 AM
Subject: [GiftEconomy] 'Emerges'? How about 're-emerges'?


> Thanks for this, Tereza.
>>> The Sharing Economy Emerges
>>> Peer to peer exchange of goods and services has skyrocketed way
>>> beyond craigslist.org and Couch Surfing. Now, access to goods and
>>> skills is becoming more important than ownership of them. And that
>>> has sparked a "Sharing Economy". Gartner Group researchers estimate
>>> that the peer-to-peer financial-lending market will reach $5 billion
>>> by 2013. Botsman says the consumer peer-to-peer rental market will
>>> become a $26 billion sector, and believes the sharing economy, in
>>> total, is a $110 billion-plus market. "Is this purely a
>>> warm-and-fuzzy kind of thing?" says Ann Miura-Ko, a venture
>>> capitalist at Floodgate Fund. "It's not. It's underutilized asset
>>> utilization." That is to say, sharing is becoming common place.
> The rise of digitally mediated sharing is indeed promising, but only a
> capitalist could see this as a fundamentally new thing. I mean life is
> full of sharing. To say nothing of shared genes, shared understandings
> or shared streets, people in most parts of the world still share all
> sorts of stuff daily, just as they used to in the past in USA.
> Barnraising? Potlatch?
>
> So whilst in one sense it's a welcome step away from what Eisenstein
> calls "the discrete and separate self", sharing does not cease to count
> just because it goes unaccounted in ledgers. Arguably, unmetered sharing
> is more important. I haven't investigated the 'Floodgate Fund', so I may
> be doing her an injustice, but Ann Miura-Ko's designation as 'venture
> capitalist' suggests to me that she's expecting to get out more money
> than she puts in.
>
> Anyway, it's food for thought for my work on the Internet Gift Economy,
> which has been going slow lately - distracted by working on the
> roofgarden. The current model as regards metering is to leave it up to
> those involved whether they want to record things. Eitherway, a big
> difference is that there won't be any central authority in charge, so no
> point for revenue extraction. No business model.
>
> Robin
>
> _______________________________________________
> GiftEconomy mailing list
> GiftEconomy at lists.gifteconomy.org
> http://lists.gifteconomy.org/listinfo.cgi/gifteconomy-gifteconomy.org
>