"Do you believe a stranger will do the right thing?"

"The decline of serial killers and rise of the sharing economy. The booming market for peer-to-peer business is a reflection of Americans' renewed faith in strangers."

In San Francisco and Los Angeles, fleets of amateur taxi drivers have taken to the streets, using services like Lyft and Sidecar to find fares, ferrying total strangers around to earn extra cash. In New York City, despite legal concerns, there are thousands of apartments available on Airbnb, and many renters allow a never ending stream of visitors to book a spare bedroom for a few nights each week. Across the nation, TaskRabbits fill odd jobs — walking the dogs, carrying the groceries, and cleaning the bathrooms of people they don’t know very well at all. 

Collectively these companies have raised over $200 million in funding to power what's known as the "sharing economy." But there was time not so long ago when the idea of interacting so freely with complete strangers would have made many Americans much more uncomfortable. "There was a cultural moment during the '70s and '80s where the dominant boogieman was the serial killer. This figure crystallized our worst fears, and walked among us," says Harold Schecter, a professor at Queens College and a true-crime writer.

The article goes on to say that the trend in serial killings peaked in the 80's and has gone steadily down since then. Which I suppose is another way of saying "the booming market for peer-to-peer could/should boom larger, now that people don't have to be as afraid of strangers. Which begs the question... If the scourge that was serial killing is no longer the specter preventing this flourishing world of tomorrow, here today, thanks to the internet, how come this rent-a-rigmarole has not quite taken over the economy? *

To help me answer that attempt at asking a question, in a flash of sheer perspicacity, I goggled guru 'David Brooks shared economy'. The search lead me indirectly to him by way of a derisively critical Media-ite post of Tom Friedman's take on this "per-to-peer market".

All this paradigm needs is a catchy name, which Friedman, like his paper-mate David Brooks, specializes in. Behold the “sharing economy”:

In a world where, as I’ve argued, average is over — the skills required for any good job keep rising — a lot of people who might not be able to acquire those skills can still earn a good living now by building their own branded reputations, whether it is to rent their kids’ rooms, their cars or their power tools. “There are 80 million power drills in America that are used an average of 13 minutes,” says Chesky. “Does everyone really need their own drill?”

Chesky (not a serial killer) is the founder of Airbnb, whom the Media-ite Post treats with a skeptical lens.

Airbnb’s story, at least as Friedman tells it, is tailor-made for the proto-Times columnist, always discerning moral patterns in the miasma of capitalism. Friedman piously repeats Airbnb founder Brian Chesky’s tale of conjuring his company while trying to scrape up rent in San Francisco, after years of failing to find a steady job with health insurance. Chesky used his ingenuity—read here as a house that he couldn’t afford but could rent out—to build a company, and presto, he got his health insurance, just as his parents wanted. An inspiring narrative, at least if you’re not skeptical of it, which you should always be when a company’s CEO describes the easy raveling of his own genius.

At this point, I'm wondering do I have to take a side? does it matter? and if it does, is it going to help me close this post, before I get lost, looking for serial killers... For what is worth, its apparent to me that the arguments for and against "the sharing economy", as presented in some publications, stem from a more general debate of capitalism vs shades of communism.
Which as I understand it, is not fitting of the Amazon portal to your right --->
What?... (double take)
Yes, the one I'm in the position of asking readers to use from time to time. That one!
Thanks to those who have used it, and to those who have yet to use it too.

The Verge, Media-ite, The NYT

* I was tempted to say by storm, but that would put me over my self imposed limit of wanton use of metaphors.

bagoh20 said...

If you stop and think about it, you will be amazed by how much of your life is consumed dealing with the simple fact that you can't trust people.

Locking and unlocking everything you touch: your phone, computer, desk, your house, your car. Hiding things like guns, your wallet, food in your refrigerator. Everybody has to pay for and maintain fences, walls, security systems and alarms. You need endless passwords, pin numbers, and elaborate secret handshakes. You have to deal with police, banks, lawyers, accountants, and others primarily to protect your stuff. You need contracts, and receipts, giant stuffed money belts, mob enforcers, and body guards. You have to worry about someone stealing your money, your information, your dirty underwear, your virginity, your wife, your kids, your dog, and even your very identity.

If people were all trustworthy, the economy would either flourish or grind to a halt depending on who you are.

I'm 100% trust worthy, except I will sneak a look at your ass when you turn your back, but you were hoping I would anyway.