The Peer Economy Under Fire

This last week was a rough one to market the peer economy. Berlin recently announced that Uber was effectively prohibited from their city while several others, such as Barcelona and London, continue to voice adamant opposition to rideshare services. As per usual, Airbnb is faced with challenges across the globe. 

Justin Sullivan - Getty Images

In addition, the peer economy is constantly being critiqued in the media. Time.com recently posted an article titled "6 Horrible Things the Sharing Economy is Being Accused Of". Sabotaging each other, wrecking the housing market, and illegal currency trading were a few of the troubling accusations listed. The article highlights that the shared economy can be "brutally cut-throat in the way that seemingly everything and everyone is monetized", which unfortunately, has resulted in a slew of negative press. 

The New York Times recently did a profile piece on a few sharing economy employees, specifically highlighting a mother of 3. The Times followed Jennifer Guidry on a 19 hour work day, doing everything from giving rides, to cooking private meals. Guidry talks about how the sharing economy gives her the flexibility she needs to spend time with her kids but comes with the instability of any ad hoc job. 

“I like my freedom — fixing someone’s cabinet, driving, pulling up weeds, cooking,” she told me as we sat in her dining room on Monday morning, recapping her weekend of work. “I would not like to do any of those things as a full-time job.”

Guidry sheds light on what it is really like to work in the gig economy, and what the payoff is. While she enjoys her work, the article poses concerns about the lack of stability and benefits that come with a traditional full time job. While some platforms have started to offer some services to employees, such as discount health insurance and accounting services, economists worry that it may not be enough.  

While some may see the sharing economy's recent increase in negative media as a sign of impending doom, this could be a very unique opportunity for the sharing community. Watching an economic movement develop in real time has never really been an option before. Enthusiasts can use this advantage to approach issues as they occur and come up with solutions before they become a characteristic of the collaborative economy. The question is whether or not we are willing to utilize this opportunity as a community or if the competitiveness of business will prevail. 

What do you think?

The Sharing Economy: What's in a Name?

One of the first things opposition of the shared economy will point out is that members are not actually sharing anything. There have been debates based solely on the name of this economic model. The only thing I can equate this to is how the rest of the world must feel about American Football. Misleading title and not technically true (at least for the majority of playtime). Supporters of the sharing economy can't argue too hard because most of the larger platforms aren't exactly sharing or collaborating. Airbnb hosts receive payment for the usage of their homes, and TaskRabbit's receive payment for their services. To share would mean that there was no payment required for goods or services, and therefore, opposition is correct. However, this has no affect on how supporters feel about the shared economy in the same way that Americans will continue to defy the world with the word soccer. 

Andrew Geant, CEO and Co-Founder of WyzAnt, a tutor search website, recently wrote an article for Entrepreneur regarding the naming of the shared economy. Geant's article, The Sharing Economy is Misnamed But Deserves Celebration Anyway, takes a look at what we could be calling the sharing economy instead.

"Certainly there are common threads among these businesses and reasons why several of them have grown exponentially to multibillion dollar valuations. But sharing and collaboration are not part of the secret sauce.  What makes these businesses special and successful are the concepts of participation and utilization."

"'Participation' and 'utilization'' are better terms for this new sector of the economy because these adjectives describe concepts that sharing and collaboration have never fully captured."

In the article Geant goes onto to explain where and when "Participation" and "Utilization" fit:

"Participation: noun; the action of taking part in something.Businesses like Uber, Airbnb and Etsy increase accessibility to goods and services that were historically limited by regulation, price, awareness and other factors.  This is true for both supply and demand (riders and drivers, hosts and travelers, and buyers and sellers). These businesses cause participation to increase among all parties."

"Utilization: noun; putting to use; turning to profitable account.Utilization is another way of saying that these businesses take advantage of excess supply and latent demand. This is where the term “sharing” is often substituted incorrectly ( When I rent a spare bedroom on Airbnb, it is a business transaction, not sharing. I'm motivated by profit to utilize a resource I control)."

Geant reviews a handful of sharing platforms and where they would fall into his new categories. Check out the rest of his article for more information.

What do you think? Does the sharing economy need a technically correct title? And if so what do you think of Participation and Utilization? 

Shareconomy Kickstarter

We are pleased to announce that the Shareconomy Kickstarter went live this week. This project has been an exciting chapter of our lives are we are so close to completion. We invite you to check out the Shareconomy Kickstarter page and let us know what you think.

Shareconomy examines the sharing economy through the eyes of those who know it best. The film features interviews from academics and experts studying the movement, government officials tasked with regulating this new economy, and those individuals using sharing platforms to enrich and empower their lives. Many working within the sharing economy embody the micro-entrepreneurial spirit, a model for the 'new worker' in this 'new economy'. Through these characters, we will discover the complexities of the sharing economy and its current and potential impact on our society. Shareconomy explores both the pros and cons of this economic movement, questioning whether this 'new economy' will transform the way we work, live, and interact with each other forever. 

Through this film we have an opportunity to spark a global conversation on this economic movement while still in its primary development. Economists and academics have predicted that this new sector could have the biggest impact on society since the Industrial Revolution. Globally, sharing economy companies are worth nearly $500 billion and are disrupting major established industries and challenging governmental regulations. We hope this film can provide a macro-level view of the sharing economy movement and an honest discussion about the pros and cons.

The film is about halfway through production and we need your help to finish it. Those familiar with the sharing economy will understand why we utilized crowd-funding to help us complete funding. A film based on the economic impact of the sharing society wouldn't be right if we didn't partner with our audience. Our goal is to raise $115,000 by July 4th, 2014. We've come up with some unique rewards for every level donation, all with the sharing economy in mind (including crashing at the Director's house for a night). 

Please take a moment to check out our Kickstarter page and view the extended trailer. We are so grateful for any contribution you can make, including spreading the word to family, friends and colleagues. 

Thank you so much for all your support. Let's make this movie happen!

Share NY

No taxies at 4pm in NYC? Load up the carriage full of luggage and go! On our way to #sharenyc #shareconomyfilm pic.twitter.com/1IjA5DHY4L

— Shareconomy (@shareconomyfilm) May 30, 2014

Today Greg and Jillian headed to the inaugral Share NYC conference at NYU. Hosted by Arun Sundararajan, Luke Williams, and Cynthia Franklin, #ShareNYC featured speakers and panels discussing current hot topics in the sharing economy. The event joined together "entrepreneurs, government leaders, academics, business executives, VCs and students for a unique day of discussion and thought leadership about the emerging collaborative, peer-to-peer and sharing economies." Unfortunately the event was not live-streamed, however Twitter gave us a pretty decent play by play on the main points of discussion.

.@digitalarun framing #sharenyc and announcing http://t.co/V8E4qW2plj a collective #sharingeconomy research platform pic.twitter.com/9H7Y3QwmBH

— Benjamin Tincq (@btincq) May 30, 2014

So true:"Institutions will always work to preserve the problem to which they are the solution" @cshirky #sharenyc

— Jennifer Bradley (@JBradley_DC) May 30, 2014

The sharing economy is a way to address inequality- it's a way to share wealth via @Sara_Horowitz #sharenyc

— Let's Collaborate! (@letscollabnyc) May 30, 2014

the new collectives: @cshirky chats w/@rasiej @nataliefoster @dkrugman @cshapiro @btincq #sharenyc pic.twitter.com/6FHpGWhLfa

— Arun Sundararajan (@digitalarun) May 30, 2014

Welcome @freelancersu, largest group for freelancers in US. Shifting risk from individuals to a collective. #sharenyc pic.twitter.com/AinapjKPNS

— sydney campos (@sydcampos415) May 30, 2014

Yes! Thrilled to see published. MT @obeniflah Proposed Principles for Peer Economy by Sarah Cannon, Harvard pic.twitter.com/0AxXlkSvi0 #sharenyc

— April Rinne (@aprilrinne) May 30, 2014

.@fredwilson closing at #sharenyc: what will be the role of govt, capitalism when we move to true distributed systems #thoughtprovoking

— sidbhatia (@sidbhatia) May 30, 2014

The first Share NYC conference seemed to be a success and continues to confirm the interest society has in the sharing economy. It's excellent to see such a young economic model hashed out by groups of educators, regulators and enthusiasts while still in development. Did you have an opportunity to attend #ShareNYC? What did you think? Are these conferences developing the sharing economy or not?

a regulator, a lawyer and an economist walk into a bar... #sharenyc

— jen lemen (@jenlemen) May 30, 2014

Airbnb's Agreement in New York

This week New York State's attorney general Eric T. Schneiderman, succeeded in obtaining a subpoena for anonymized data on New York Airbnb hosts. Schneiderman recently targeted the housing-rental site stating that some hosts are "large, commercial enterprises with dozens of apartments - truly illegal hotels". This was Schneiderman's second attempt to get Airbnb records as the first deemed over-broad by a New York Supreme Court Justice. Schneiderman narrowed his focus and submitted a new subpoena the next day which was approved Wednesday. 

The attorney will have a year to sort through the data and identify those in violation of local laws. Scheiderman has stated that he only plans to pursue anyone who's running illegal hotels. If his office finds something suspicious, Airbnb must identify the host. Airbnb's head of global public policy, David Hantman, called it "a strong agreement that best protects our community's data and sets us on a positive path forward." 

So far, it looks like both parties are claiming this ruling a victory. We have yet to hear how NY hosts feel about the agreement. For many, inviting a stranger to stay in their home is much more comfortable than opening it up to regulators.

Schneiderman is one of many regulators keeping their eye on the digital economy. He announced his intentions for sites like Airbnb and Uber in a press release last month:

Regulators should not be deterred and, as a practical matter, they can’t and won’t be — we are now living in an online world, one that offers great promise but is also becoming one of the primary crime scenes of the 21st century. Major service providers cannot be allowed to treat it as a digital Wild West. The only question is how long it will take for these cybercowboys to realize that working with the sheriffs is both good business and the right thing to do.

 Schneiderman claims that the deal was "a template for other places in the country where the issue has been raised."

Perhaps it will become a worldwide template as Airbnb was also in international news this week as one host ran into legal problems in France. A young man was found guilty of breaking his lease after subletting out his room in Paris for €450 ($613) a week. The man was ordered to pay € 2,842 ($3,872.79) in damages to his landlord. 

The judgment – a first involving Airbnb in France – coincides with a wider crackdown by the French government and the Paris town hall on the flourishing market for letting rooms or whole apartments to tourists. It also coincides with the settlement of a legal battle between Airbnb and New York State, which could lead to the prosecution of thousands of people who have defied state laws and let rooms or flats to tourists.

We are curious to see how this plays out. What do you think? Is this an example of over regulation or did Airbnb have this coming? Check out Airbnb's Blog Post on the deal and let us know what you think.

Transparency Rules the Sharing Economy

Last week's blog post talked about trust in the sharing economy and different views on whether peer economy users are experiencing honest, organic trust or not. Whether you believe that the sharing economy is a trust inducing system or that it's all an illusion you can't ignore that it's an economic model that is increasing in strength. 

But how are they doing it? Peer-to-peer Sites like eBay and Craigslist have been around for almost 2 decades and while both have done well, they didn't necessarily inspire the intensity of excitement that we are seeing from the success of companies like Uber and Airbnb. Carl Alviani explains why in his recent WIRED article "Uber Learned the Hard Way: Transparency Rules the Sharing Economy". Alviani talks about Uber's recent struggle trying to explain their surge-pricing policy:

This is far more vitriol than you’d expect from a simple price increase, but makes more sense when you recognize how much consumers hate opacity and unpredictability. So when CEO Travis Kalanick announced that Uber’s app would indicate when a current surge period is scheduled to end, fans breathed a sigh of relief. Kalanick describes the move as an attempt to “bring more humanity to our communications,” but it’s more accurate to say that Uber is finally coming to grips with active transparency, which has become standard throughout the Sharing Economy.

Alviani goes onto to talk about what other platforms, such as Airbnb and Etsy, are doing to promote transparency. Essentially, they highlight everything that could go wrong with your connection and what to do about it. All with the clarity and care that you'd find on any other part of their site. 

This is why established peer-to-peer marketplaces like Etsy and Airbnb make a point of using their design chops to celebrate information that others sweep under the rug. Go to their websites and you’ll encounter pages outlining terms of service, cancellation policies, dispute resolutions and other boring details, treated with the same elegant design and clever copywriting as taglines and banner ads. Features like searchable photos, well-written descriptions and sensible interaction flows are everywhere, not because they’re nice to have, but because they’re the foundation that allows this trust-based model work. These are what make browsing for vintage furniture more comfortable on Etsy than on eBay, and meeting people on Match.com less creepy than on Craigslist.

It appears that Uber has learned their lesson and it will be interesting to see what else they will make transparent. Check out the entire article by Alviani on WIRED and let us know what you think. Why do you think transparency is such a huge part of the sharing economy? Better yet, why does this feel like such a new concept? What organization would you like to see be a little more transparent?

Trust and the Sharing Economy

This last week several articles came out regarding one of the collaborative economy's most popular keywords, trust. It's a massive piece of what it takes to be an active participant of the peer economy and now a hot topic of conversation.  

Jason Tanz' recent Wired article "How Airbnb and Lyft Finally Got Americans to Trust Each Other" covers everything from interviews of Sharing Economy users to a history lesson on when America's started losing trust in each other in the first place (according to Tanz, sometime in the mid-19th Century). 

Shortly after Tanz' article released, Christine Lagorio-Chafkin of Inc. published "Why Trust Is the Sharing Economy's Pipe Dream", which concluded that any sense of real, organic trust "still feels like a hologram".

A recent Wired cover story seemed poised to explore how companies in the sharing economy foster compassion, community, and trust, but it actually surfaced a more complex and compelling argument, one with which I agree: These companies actually have built quite a sturdy backbone of protections for users (certainly these fail from time-to-time, but they exist) that they've eliminated much of the need for that elusive trust by customers.

Lagoria-Chafkin goes on to quote Tanz's article who writes:

Indeed, for the time being the boundaries of the sharing economy are protected fairly rigidly. If you’ve ever been caught driving more than 20 miles over the speed limit, you can't rent a car on RelayRides. Aspiring Lyft drivers must pass a background and DMV check and get approved by a mentor, who judges applicants not just on driving ability but on personality. DogVacay hosts go through a five-step vetting process that includes training videos, quizzes, and a telephone interview.

She goes onto say:

In comparing the evolution of the modern marketplace economy to the explosion of institutional banking and insurance in the early 20th century, Tanz continues: "this new system acted as a trust proxy; it didn't require people to trust one another, because they could rely on a centralized system to protect their interests."

The digital marketplace as a trust proxy: Now this makes a lot more sense. 

Both articles make interesting points. Read Jason Tanz's enttire article advocating trust here and Christine Lagorio-Chafkin's rebuttal here. 

What do you think? Is the Sharing Economy based on real, organic, neighborly trust? 

Some Setbacks for the Sharing Economy

"Scrutiny of the so-called sharing economy seems to increase every day" and today it's in San Francisco, one of the collaborative economy's model cities.

The San Francisco city attorney sued two landlords Wednesday, claiming they illegally converted residential housing into short-term rentals that were advertised on Airbnb and similar services. The former residents, two of whom were disabled, were evicted using the Ellis Act, a controversial California law that allows landlords to reclaim properties for their own personal use.

Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Dennis Herrera, San Francisco City Attorney

Ouch. While Airbnb states that this particular landlord has been banned from the using the site, it doesn't mean it won't happen again.

This isn't a new discussion, especially in San Francisco who is currently in the midst of an affordable housing crisis. "Housing advocates say the law is often abused by landlords seeking to cater to the lucrative tourist market".

Ride-sharing also continues to be a topic of constant scrutiny and platform Uber is currently under investigation by New York attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman for illegal price-gouging  (selling goods at higher than reasonable or fair prices). Schneiderman is also seeking information from Airbnb which ended in court (again) this last Tuesday. 

Check out the rest of the article from The New York Times Blog and let us know what you think. Are these setbacks only the beginning? How can a sharing economy services such as Uber and Airbnb prevent users from abusing services? And how should the law respond?

Seattle Suspends ride sharing regulations one month after passage

Just one month ago, Seattle City Council enacted new regulations on rideshare companies like Uber and Airbnb. Yesterday, Uber, Lyft and Sidecar submitted more than 36,000 signatures on a repeal petition forcing a public vote. An ordinance so challenged is suspended until the public vote.

The suspension — whatever happens in the future — is a major victory for companies offering an alternative to Seattle’s much-criticized taxicab service.

In a wider sense, it is a win for the city’s technology economy, which took to heart the cause of ride sharing, arguing that Seattle must be a 21st century city open to innovation and new ways of providing services.

This is huge news for not only Seattle ridesharing companies, but for the technology driven collaborative economy in general. A public voice this strong is an obvious indicator of the popularity of sharing economy services.

Check out the entire article on the Seattle Pi's Blog and let us know what you think. Is Seattle's response to city regulation only the beginning? 

The Toronto Tool Library

The Library is one of the oldest and well known form of sharing. Now people are creating other kind of libraries and expanding the sharing economy. Check out the Toronto Tool Library and their experience with the Sharing Economy.

Why are people Sharing?

While the Sharing Economy has become increasingly popular you may have wondered why people are choosing sharing over ownership. In the Report "Sharing is the New Buying, Winning in the Collaborative Economy" by Jeremiah Owyang, Vision Critical and Crowd Companies they asked over 90,000 people why they share goods, services, space, transportation, and money. They found that the top reasons people participated in sharing was because it is more convenient, it has better value and it's a unique experience.

Check out the rest of study here and the recent dissection on why people share here and let us know what you think. Why do you share?

Airbnb becomes the Sharing Economy's first Billionaires

This last week it was announced that Airbnb was in talks of funding that would value the company at $10 billion making it's co-founders the first billionaires of the Sharing Economy.

“The trio’s first funding came in 2009, when they got into famed tech incubator Y Combinator and eventually impressed founder Paul Graham as well as Sequoia Capital, who put up $600,000 in seed funds after the program. The company’s raised money from a range of Silicon Valley elite investors since Sequoia, which was joined in a Series A round by Greylock, SV Angel, and angels including Ashton Kutcher. In 2011, it raised $112 million at a valuation north of $1 billion led by Andreessen Horowitz and joined by DST and General Catalyst Partners as well as Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos. The next year, it raised $200 million in a Series C round led by Founders Fund along with its existing investments in a deal that values the company around $2.5 billion.”

Now valued at $10 billion from private equity sources, Airbnb is worth more than Hyatt Hotels. Check out Forbes coverage of the big deal here and let us know what you think. What does this mean for Airbnb and the sharing economy? Will this become an ultimate goal for all sharing economy platforms? 

Sharing is the New Buying.

Recently, Jeremiah Owyang, Cheif Catalyst and Founder at Crowd Companies and all around Sharing Economy guru, released the largest report on the Sharing Economy to date. "Based on responses from more than 90,000 Internet users across the US, UK and Canada, the report concludes that sharing online is mainstream, growing, practical and satisfying".  

Check out the whole report here and let us know what you think. Are you surprised by these results? Excited? 

Seattle City Council Votes to Limit Rideshare Services

City legislation around the world are making decisions on where they stand in the sharing economy. We've seen San Francisco Announce their Sharing Economy Working Group and have become the poster child of American Shareable cities. Other cities like Amsterdam and Seoul, Korea have been endorsing the sharing economy and are actively working to become shareable cities. Even the United States Congress has started to address the sharing economy and it's impact. But not everyone is convinced that this movement is right for their city. Portland, Oregon has opted to exclude ridesharing until it can fully understand potential impact.

The latest news is from Seattle, Washington where city council has met several times over the last few months to discuss ridesharing and recently decided that they would limit the amount of rideshare services to 150 drivers (per company) on the street at any given time of the day. So far the ruling seems to satisfy no one. Lyft, Uber and Sidecar all released statements of extreme disappointment in the ruling.

In a statement, Lyft outlined its objections.

By passing an ordinance that does not prioritize public safety or support consumer choice, members of Seattle’s City Council have shown that their sole intent is to eliminate competition and protect existing industries in Seattle. This ordinance will eliminate Lyft in Seattle; local residents who drive for Lyft on their way to work, while they are running errands, or on the weekends to make ends meet will no longer be able to act as drivers, especially when passengers who have chosen to live car-free in Seattle need them most. While safety is often brought up as a reason to apply an old regulatory model to an innovative transportation solution, the truth is that new technology provides an opportunity to increase safety above and beyond what has been done previously. In comparison to existing requirements, Lyft’s $1M commercial liability policy is more than three times the $300,000 requirement of Seattle taxis. Despite today’s disappointing decision, we will continue to stand strong as a community and do everything possible to ensure a path forward that allows ridesharing to thrive in Seattle.

San Francisco’s Uber released a statement by its general manager in Seattle,  Brooke Steger.

It is extremely disappointing that the Seattle City Council Committee on Taxi, For-hire and Limousine Regulations has chosen to ignore the tens of thousands of their constituents who support uberX and, instead, decided it is a good policy to protect the taxi industry and effectively shut down uberX in Seattle as we know it. This decision will put hundreds of small businesses out of work and leave them without an opportunity to earn a living. The Committee has sent a strong message that they support the status quo over opportunity, transportation choices and safety. We hope when these regulations come to the full Council that innovation and safety win the day.

And Sidecar weighed in with a statement similarly expressing disappointment.

Sidecar is focused on offering safe and affordable transportation in Seattle. We share the Seattle City Council’s goal of making transportation safe for its residents. In fact, we have safety measures in place that exceed what is required by Seattle taxis. But the City Council’s decision today to cap the number of Seattle rideshare drivers is not about safety. It’s designed to protect the taxi industry by eliminating competition.These regulations move Seattle in the opposite direction of innovation by restricting consumer choice for residents who depend on safe and affordable transportation alternatives like Sidecar. Seattle residents want choice in transportation. We are disappointed that the Seattle City Council moved in favor of regulations designed to protect the narrow business interests of the taxi industry over the interests of its citizens.

- Check out SFGate's Blog Post for more info

It's easy for supporters of the peer economy to be upset by rulings such as this but these aren't easy decisions to make. April Rinne explains the dilemma best in her perspective piece "How Shareable is Your City".

To date, city governments and the sharing economy companies have rarely been seen as partners. More often, city leaders have dealt with transformative new business models from a reactionary position.  This is understandable: the rules governing many new businesses were developed for an industrial age in which mass consumption and ownership were the norm, and before today’s technologies existed, so they don’t fit within current regulatory structures. Moreover, regulators must strike a balance between competing pressures – from the public, incumbents and a variety of other stakeholders – to encourage innovation and maintain public safety.

The proposal in Seattle still needs to be officially passed by the entire city council on March 10 and would take effect 30 days after being signed into law by Mayor Ed Murray. 

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think city council's ruling was fair? If so fair to whom?

Crowdsourcing Your Political Campaign

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is using a mix of crowd-sourcing and private fundraisers to attract small and big donors to fund their political campaign in under two months. An interesting tactic to try and attract more small donors and supporters. 

"Among the plans that are likely to be launched in the coming days is crowd sourcing of funds with the help of mobile technology, allowing small donors to contribute to the party," Raghav Chadha, AAP member tasked with the fundraising, said.

This is the first time a political outfit has used mobile technology for fundraising.

The aim, party sources said, was to replicate the donations in US President Barack Obama's first election campaign that was funded by millions of supporters who gave small amounts. "Very few people can donate a lumpsum amount, so the challenge is to get 15-20 million donors who can shell out small amounts. Our banking channels are not equipped to handle the volumes so we have tied up with mobile service providers," an AAP leader said. The party has also been organizing mass fund raisers with the NRI community. 

Check out the rest of the article from The Times Of India here and start a discussion below. How long until other countries adopt this form of mobile fundraising? What could potential consequences be?

The Sharing Garden Shows the Way to a Moneyless Food System

In Monroe, Oregon, the Sharing Garden started and managed by Chris Burns and Llyn Peabody is the gift that keeps on giving. Over the past few years, the garden's bounty has tripled thanks to the support and hard work of "Sharegivers" (aka volunteers) who donate various materials and actual labor three mornings a week.

Check out the full article here and let us know what you think. Could you see your community partaking in a moneyless food system? What issues could arise?

Will the Peer Economy help Rebuild Greece?

You can probably recall Greek's government-debt crisis from the not so distant past. It's citizens still suffer from the collapse as Greece's economy has shrunk by about 25% since 2008 and unemployment stands about 27%. Many small business owners are turning to the 'social' economy to stay afloat.  Savvas Mavromatis, a small family business owner that makes detergents decided to give it a shot.

"He started selling his products directly to consumers for cash at fixed prices through a nonprofit collective, instead of to shops and traders as he had always done. Fourteen months later, he credits the group with saving his enterprise from a Greek economic meltdown that rivals the Great Depression."

Mavromatis' previous supermarket purchasers were demanding bribes just to accept his product as well as requiring additional payment for how his product would be displayed. Once he started selling without the middlemen group he was suspicious that no one even asked for a money under the table. 

It's starting to happen all over Greece. Christos Kalaitzis, who grows kiwis, olives and chickpeas, "had gotten so fed up with not being paid by big wholesalers and exporters that went bust after taking his products that he had taken the chance".

“The goal is not to destroy the old market system but just to slow it down and get it to change,” Mr. Kalaitzis explained. “Maybe this is a bit romantic, but why should I sell to big companies if their checks bounce? If the free market in Greece worked properly, none of this would be necessary.”

Check out the entire article by New York Times here and let us know what you think. Could this turn around Greece's economy?

The 'Sharing' Hype - Do companies like Lyft and Airbnb help democratize the economy?

“How can a movement that has been started by corporate and venture capital be any kind of socialism?”

2013 marked significant growth in the new sharing economy, ride-sharing company Lyft saw a twenty fold increase in users and room-sharing platform Airbnb gained 6 million customers. Last year also exposed the legality issues of sharing services and has now intertwined the sharing economy with regulators. Currently, most legal focus is on ride-sharing (e.i. Lyft and Uber) and room-sharing (Airbnb). However the sharing economy has a directory of hundreds of different platforms that provide peer-peer sharing that have the potential to violate some sort of established regulation. The sharing economy has been referred to as an "ugly throwback to the dark days of socialism". The article by In These Times asks "Is the sharing economy in fact socialist, or in any way anti-capitalist?".

In these Times met with David Golumbia, assistant professor of English at Virginia Commonwealth University and author of The Cultural Logic of Computation, Neal Gorenflo, co-founder and publisher of Shareable Magazine, and the SolidarityNYC collective to discuss the sharing conundrum. Check out the full article here and let us know what you think. Does the sharing economy encourage an anti-capitalist economy? Or a socialist one?

Taxis vs Ride-Share

One obvious issue arising from the increase in ridesharing companies is the impact it will have on the taxi industry. The taxi industry is highly regulated by the government including how many cars they can put out and how much they are allowed to charge. Taxi drivers are mandated to obtain special licensing as well as attend special courses just to be allowed on the road. As of right now, most ride sharing drivers are not required to meet any of these regulations along with many others.  Some taxi drivers are already seeing a financial impact and the debate is reaching government levels. Jon Brook's article "Will 'Ride Sharing' Kill San Francisco's Taxi Industry?" highlights the frustration that taxi driver's are feeling since Lyft, the Ride Sharing App, started in their city in 2012. 

“On the streets of San Francisco, what might be called the “Mustache War” has begun, pitting the traditional taxi industry against the networked ride services like Lyft (of the pink mustache), Sidecar and UberX. In September, the California Public Utilities Commission approved regulations to oversee the ride-service startups, which allow passengers to hire private drivers through smartphone apps.”

— KQED

San Francisco drivers aren't the only ones feeling an impact. In the article "Taxis vs ride-share: How one cabbie views the industry's transformation", Frances Nazarian of Los Angeles says that business is slower since ride-sharing came to town, but she is more bothered by what she sees as unfair competition. 

“The likes of Uber don’t have nearly as many regulatory hoops to jump through. Unlike taxis, they can raise their prices during peak times, and they can pick and choose which rides they accept and which neighborhoods to serve.

“I guarantee I could get on the Uber app right now and call from where we are right now, South Central, and not one Uber driver would take that call, or Lyft or Sidecar,” said Nazarian. “Basically, they want to work in the most affluent areas of town.”

Uber has been advertising for drivers in LA, promising they can make up to $60,000 a year.

That’s twice what Nazarian averages.”

— SCPR

San Francisco established their Sharing Economy Working Group in March of 2012 whereas Portland has chosen to wait and see how other cities regulate before allowing ride sharing.  

What do you think? Are taxis at a disadvantage? Do you see similar issues arising in other areas of the sharing economy?

Is Seoul the next Great Sharing City?

The great mega-city of Seoul, South Korea, is planning to become a model city for sharing. Inspired by San Francisco's sharing economy, and specifically the Sharing Economy Working Group, Seoul's government has started  The "Seoul, a Sharing City" Project. 

“One of the great megacities of the world, Seoul, South Korea, is positioning itself to be a model city for sharing. A new, city-funded project called “Sharing City, Seoul” aims to bring the sharing economy to all Seoul citizens by expanding sharing infrastructure, promoting existing sharing enterprises, incubating sharing economy startups, utilizing idle public resources, and providing more access to data and digital works.”

Check out Cat Johnson's article on Seoul 'Is Seoul the next Great Sharing City?' and Seoul's government page dedicated to the project and let us know what you think.

Is Seoul setting a standard for innovative cities? Or is the Peer Economy still just a trend that will eventually die out?