Rachel Botsman: The case for collaborative consumption

Rachel Botsman: The case for collaborative consumption


So today I’m going to talk to you about the rise of collaborative consumption. I’m going to explain what it is and try and convince you — in just 15 minutes — that this isn’t a flimsy idea, or a short-term trend, but a powerful cultural and economic force reinventing not just what we consume, but how we consume. Now I’m going to start with a deceptively simple example. Hands up — how many of you have books, CDs, DVDs, or videos lying around your house that you probably won’t use again, but you can’t quite bring yourself to throw away? Can’t see all the hands, but it looks like all of you, right? On our shelves at home, we have a box set of the DVD series “24,” season six to be precise. I think it was bought for us around three years ago for a Christmas present. Now my husband, Chris, and I love this show. But let’s face it, when you’ve watched it once maybe, or twice, you don’t really want to watch it again, because you know how Jack Bauer is going to defeat the terrorists. So there it sits on our shelves obsolete to us, but with immediate latent value to someone else. Now before we go on, I have a confession to make. I lived in New York for 10 years, and I am a big fan of “Sex and the City.” Now I’d love to watch the first movie again as sort of a warm-up to the sequel coming out next week. So how easily could I swap our unwanted copy of “24” for a wanted copy of “Sex and the City?” Now you may have noticed there’s a new sector emerging called swap-trading. Now the easiest analogy for swap-trading is like an online dating service for all your unwanted media. What it does is use the Internet to create an infinite marketplace to match person A’s “haves” with person C’s “wants,” whatever they may be. The other week, I went on one of these sites, appropriately called Swaptree, and there were over 59,300 items that I could instantly swap for my copy of “24.” Lo and behold, there in Reseda, CA was Rondoron who wanted swap his or her “like new” copy of “Sex and the City” for my copy of “24.” So in other words, what’s happening here is that Swaptree solves my carrying company’s sugar rush problem, a problem the economists call “the coincidence of wants,” in approximately 60 seconds. What’s even more amazing is it will print out a postage label on the spot, because it knows the way of the item. Now there are layers of technical wonder behind sites such as Swaptree, but that’s not my interest, and nor is swap trading, per se. My passion, and what I’ve spent the last few years dedicated to researching, is the collaborative behaviors and trust-mechanics inherent in these systems. When you think about it, it would have seemed like a crazy idea, even a few years ago, that I would swap my stuff with a total stranger whose real name I didn’t know and without any money changing hands. Yet 99 percent of trades on Swaptree happen successfully, and the one percent that receive a negative rating, it’s for relatively minor reasons, like the item didn’t arrive on time. So what’s happening here? An extremely powerful dynamic that has huge commercial and cultural implications is at play. Namely, that technology is enabling trust between strangers. We now live in a global village where we can mimic the ties that used to happen face to face, but on a scale and in ways that have never been possible before. So what’s actually happening is that social networks and real-time technologies are taking us back. We’re bartering, trading, swapping, sharing, but they’re being reinvented into dynamic and appealing forms. What I find fascinating is that we’ve actually wired our world to share, whether that’s our neighborhood, our school, our office, or our Facebook network, and that’s creating an economy of “what’s mine is yours.” From the mighty eBay, the grandfather of exchange marketplaces, to car-sharing companies such as GoGet, where you pay a monthly fee to rent cars by the hour, to social lending platforms such as Zopa, that will take anyone in this audience with 100 dollars to lend, and match them with a borrower anywhere in the world, we’re sharing and collaborating again in ways that I believe are more hip than hippie. I call this “groundswell collaborative consumption.” Now before I dig into the different systems of collaborative consumption, I’d like to try and answer the question that every author rightfully gets asked, which is, where did this idea come from? Now I’d like to say I woke up one morning and said, “I’m going to write about collaborative consumption,” but actually it was a complicated web of seemingly disconnected ideas. Over the next minute, you’re going to see a bit like a conceptual fireworks display of all the dots that went on in my head. The first thing I began to notice: how many big concepts were emerging — from the wisdom of crowds to smart mobs — around how ridiculously easy it is to form groups for a purpose. And linked to this crowd mania were examples all around the world — from the election of a president to the infamous Wikipedia, and everything in between — on what the power of numbers could achieve. Now, you know when you learn a new word, and then you start to see that word everywhere? That’s what happened to me when I noticed that we are moving from passive consumers to creators, to highly enabled collaborators. What’s happening is the Internet is removing the middleman, so that anyone from a T-shirt designer to a knitter can make a living selling peer-to-peer. And the ubiquitous force of this peer-to-peer revolution means that sharing is happening at phenomenal rates. I mean, it’s amazing to think that, in every single minute of this speech, 25 hours of YouTube video will be loaded. Now what I find fascinating about these examples is how they’re actually tapping into our primate instincts. I mean, we’re monkeys, and we’re born and bred to share and cooperate. And we were doing so for thousands of years, whether it’s when we hunted in packs, or farmed in cooperatives, before this big system called hyper-consumption came along and we built these fences and created out own little fiefdoms. But things are changing, and one of the reasons why is the digital natives, or Gen-Y. They’re growing up sharing — files, video games, knowledge. It’s second nature to them. So we, the millennials — I am just a millennial — are like foot soldiers, moving us from a culture of “me” to a culture of “we.” The reason why it’s happening so fast is because of mobile collaboration. We now live in a connected age where we can locate anyone, anytime, in real-time, from a small device in our hands. All of this was going through my head towards the end of 2008, when, of course, the great financial crash happened. Thomas Friedman is one of my favorite New York Times columnists, and he poignantly commented that 2008 is when we hit a wall, when Mother Nature and the market both said, “No more.” Now we rationally know that an economy built on hyper-consumption is a Ponzi scheme. It’s a house of cards. Yet, it’s hard for us to individually know what to do. So all of this is a lot of twittering, right? Well it was a lot of noise and complexity in my head, until actually I realized it was happening because of four key drivers. One, a renewed belief in the importance of community, and a very redefinition of what friend and neighbor really means. A torrent of peer-to-peer social networks and real-time technologies, fundamentally changing the way we behave. Three, pressing unresolved environmental concerns. And four, a global recession that has fundamentally shocked consumer behaviors. These four drivers are fusing together and creating the big shift — away from the 20th century, defined by hyper-consumption, towards the 21st century, defined by collaborative consumption. I generally believe we’re at an inflection point where the sharing behaviors — through sites such as Flickr and Twitter that are becoming second nature online — are being applied to offline areas of our everyday lives. From morning commutes to the way fashion is designed to the way we grow food, we are consuming and collaborating once again. So my co-author, Roo Rogers, and I have actually gathered thousands of examples from all around the world of collaborative consumption. And although they vary enormously in scale, maturity and purpose, when we dived into them, we realized that they could actually be organized into three clear systems. The first is redistribution markets. Redistribution markets, just like Swaptree, are when you take a used, or pre-owned, item and move it from where it’s not needed to somewhere, or someone, where it is. They’re increasingly thought of as the fifth ‘R’ — reduce, reuse, recycle, repair and redistribute — because they stretch the life cycle of a product and thereby reduce waste. The second is collaborative lifestyles. This is the sharing of resources of things like money, skills and time. I bet, in a couple of years, that phrases like “coworking” and “couchsurfing” and “time banks” are going to become a part of everyday vernacular. One of my favorite examples of collaborative lifestyles is called Landshare. It’s a scheme in the U.K. that matches Mr. Jones, with some spare space in his back garden, with Mrs. Smith, a would-be grower. Together they grow their own food. It’s one of those ideas that’s so simple, yet brilliant, you wonder why it’s never been done before. Now, the third system is product-service systems. This is where you pay for the benefit of the product — what it does for you — without needing to own the product outright. This idea is particularly powerful for things that have high-idling capacity. And that can be anything from baby goods to fashions to — how many of you have a power drill, own a power drill? Right. That power drill will be used around 12 to 13 minutes in its entire lifetime. (Laughter) It’s kind of ridiculous, right? Because what you need is the hole, not the drill. (Laughter) (Applause) So why don’t you rent the drill, or, even better, rent out your own drill to other people and make some money from it? These three systems are coming together, allowing people to share resources without sacrificing their lifestyles, or their cherished personal freedoms. I’m not asking people to share nicely in the sandpit. So I want to just give you an example of how powerful collaborative consumption can be to change behaviors. The average car costs 8,000 dollars a year to run. Yet, that car sits idle for 23 hours a day. So when you consider these two facts, it starts to make a little less sense that we have to own one outright. So this is where car-sharing companies such as Zipcar and GoGet come in. In 2009, Zipcar took 250 participants from across 13 cities — and they’re all self-confessed car addicts and car-sharing rookies — and got them to surrender their keys for a month. Instead, these people had to walk, bike, take the train, or other forms of public transport. They could only use their Zipcar membership when absolutely necessary. The results of this challenge after just one month was staggering. It’s amazing that 413 lbs were lost just from the extra exercise. But my favorite statistic is that 100 out of the 250 participants did not want their keys back. In other words, the car addicts had lost their urge to own. Now products-service systems have been around for years. Just think of libraries and laundrettes. But I think they’re entering a new age, because technology makes sharing frictionless and fun. There’s a great quote that was written in the New York Times that said, “Sharing is to ownership what the iPod is to the 8-track, what solar power is to the coal mine.” I believe also, our generation, our relationship to satisfying what we want is far less tangible than any other previous generation. I don’t want the DVD; I want the movie it carries. I don’t want a clunky answering machine; I want the message it saves. I don’t want a CD; I want the music it plays. In other words, I don’t want stuff; I want the needs or experiences it fulfills. This is fueling a massive shift from where usage trumps possessions — or as Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine, puts it, “where access is better than ownership.” Now as our possessions dematerialize into the cloud, a blurry line is appearing between what’s mine, what’s yours, and what’s ours. I want to give you one example that shows how fast this evolution is happening. This represents an eight-year time span. We’ve gone from traditional car-ownership to car-sharing companies, such as Zipcar and GoGet, to ride-sharing platforms that match rides to the newest entry, which is peer-to-peer car rental, where you can actually make money out of renting that car that sits idle for 23 hours a day to your neighbor. Now all of these systems require a degree of trust, and the cornerstone to this working is reputation. Now in the old consumer system, our reputation didn’t matter so much, because our credit history was far more important that any kind of peer-to-peer review. But now with the Web, we leave a trail. With every spammer we flag, with every idea we post, comment we share, we’re actually signaling how well we collaborate, and whether we can or can’t be trusted. Let’s go back to my first example, Swaptree. I can see that Rondoron has completed 553 trades with a 100 percent success rate. In other words, I can trust him or her. Now mark my words, it’s only a matter of time before we’re going to be able to perform a Google-like search and see a cumulative picture of our reputation capital. And this reputation capital will determine our access to collaborative consumption. It’s a new social currency, so to speak, that could become as powerful as our credit rating. Now as a closing thought, I believe we’re actually in a period where we’re waking up from this humongous hangover of emptiness and waste, and we’re taking a leap to create a more sustainable system built to serve our innate needs for community and individual identity. I believe it will be referred to as a revolution, so to speak — when society, faced with great challenges, made a seismic shift from individual getting and spending towards a rediscovery of collective good. I’m on a mission to make sharing cool. I’m on a mission to make sharing hip. Because I really believe it can disrupt outdated modes of business, help us leapfrog over wasteful forms of hyper-consumption and teach us when enough really is enough. Thank you very much. (Applause)

100 thoughts on “Rachel Botsman: The case for collaborative consumption”

  1. Everything about this clip seems right to me, except sharing physical objects. Renting them out, yes. Sharing them, not so much.

    In an ideal world, everyone will put equal wear and take equally good care of an item, but some people will put more strain and wear and take less care of thigns than others, so people will want their own "copies" of these things so they can be taken care of and used in the way they think it should be.

  2. @agraver or anarchism, primitivism, communism etc. I'm tired of people saying TZM and the venus project are some radical new idea, other than some of fresco's gadgets it's the same sort of thing that progressive thinkers have been saying for centuries.

  3. @agraver That takes too much time and effort. Your entire life will center around "collaboration" and putting food in your stomach. Money allows you to do whatever you want to. Collaboration requires you do what everyone else wants you to do.

  4. Sharing and access are an emerging capital and will (and largely are already) play a critical role in every sphere, from politics, to economics, to environmentalism.

    Botsman's point about the gen Y's native sharing habits is eloquent and informative.

  5. @steve0281 The problem with money (capital is a better word to use in this discussion, as it is much more versatile) is that there is not enough to go around for everyone to do whatever they want. And when people with money do what they please, shit gets fucked up. Just look at what we're doing to our earth and the disparity between quality of life among different regions of the world. Sorry to assume, but I'd guess you were born before 1970…

  6. @bowerbjo I agree, but saying "some would argue" is a lot less confrontational, my real aim was to get her to watch the AronRa video and not to just simply tell her that I think she’s wrong. That video explains the facts far better than any text comment could, plus it’s a great video, more people should see it.

  7. @watchmanthomas I don't get it. The video is an endorsement of the idea, not of the example. I don't have to like the things that are swapped / shared, but I love the idea. And you are wrong; change starts at a conscious level.

  8. all i can say is … duuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, welcome to the modern world.

    i guess we need someone to explain the internet to those unfortunate few who have been living under a rock for the last decade.

  9. @watchmanthomas you know, why those women consume that much? Definitely not because they want to spend money. But to satisfy their longings, which are much more differentiable than shoes rather than pure consumption. Who says that their longings are satisfiable only by consumption? Maybe Botsman got her idea of sharing actually *BY* watching that series? Finally, that series doesn't only communicate consume! to women, also.

  10. there shouldn't be a monetary system now in the first place! all this shit she's talking about is based on an outdated system ! i agree – all for sharing of ideas and no intellectual property – but why – for fuck's sake – should we focus on materialistic, egocentric and stagnating system in the first place? urbanization and all that shit is backfiring right about now.

    nature. nurture. team-play.

    those are the rules.

    seams like me against the world, as tupac said. he was never pardoned.

  11. the idea is actually pretty interesting, but the presentation was horrible… she really failed in getting the idea across properly!

  12. @Aslapacrosstheface Communism is a government enforcing the distribution of resources artificially and often against people's will, based not on interpersonal interaction and trust building, but on abstract standards of "equality".

    This is not Communism. She is suggesting people voluntarily work together, to develop these concepts gradually, in order to meet their own needs, on their own terms; rather than, remaining slaves to a consumerist bastardization of Capitalism (itself unsustainable).

  13. @watchmanthomas Sorry to butt in, but way to hit the nail on the head. I don't see the confidence or independence in four women spending basically every waking moment obsessing about men.

    I was recently presented with a litmus test for how "gender evolved" a movie or TV show is.
    1. Are there at least 2 female characters? (central characters, not bit roles)
    2. Do they speak to each other?
    3. When they speak, is it about anything but men?

    Yes to all three, and you have real women characters.

  14. @clearmenser I think that's sort of her point. In the not so distant past, people traded with each other all the time. Growing corporations used their physical capital to monopolize shipping and advertising, in order to carve out ever larger portions of markets. This made p2p trading very difficult to sustain, in any meaningful way. Now, because CERN made the technology behind the internet open to all, we have this medium in which we can "go back to it".

  15. I think there is a small chance, if she is correct, that a model such as this could lead to an increased focus on quality.

  16. @t3tsuyaguy1 We are neither fish nor amphibians. We are also derived from one celled organisms that doesn't mean we're one celled. If you want to talk about classification, it's best to use the names of the classes and not some fuzzy colloquial names.

  17. @theyetunusedname clade: a group consisting of an organism and all of it's descendants. You are member of every clade your ancestors were a member of. You are a fish. You a very specific kind of fish (homo sapians sapians), who no longer resembles your fish ancestors in any meaningful way, but you are still a fish.

    Also – fish, amphibian, reptile, mammal, and many other common colloquial terms are also valid terms of taxonomy. They aren't fuzzy. I'm really not sure why you think they are.

  18. @lassek85 Um… you're a fringe wacko alarmist. Nobody (or very few people) believe in a zero-growth economy. Even the experts, who've collectively pushed off the estimated "point of no return" for global warming to 2100, now say that curbing economic growth now, may deny us the research and technologies that we will need to actually save the planet when the real climate crisis starts to emerge a century from now.

  19. @lassek85 I'm talking about ECONOMIC growth… I'm not sure what you're talking about. Growing "wealth" and "moneyflow" *is* economic growth. However, its not some conservative talking point that our chances of averting a cataclysmic climate change are more likely with economic growth. We *do not* have the tech to prevent climate change right now. Therefore, someone who's sincere about saving the planet should support pro-growth economic policies, where ecology research can be well-funded.

  20. @lassek85 First off, you said "zero growth ECONOMY. An economy that doesn't grow permanently would be cataclysmic to human civilization. As for my sources, the most well-known is the Copenhagen Consensus… but their findings shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who knows about the issue. We do not have the technology to avert climate change today. Moving from gas heat and cars to electric is just trading one fossil fuel for coal, and large-scale renewables isn't capable of sustaining civilization

  21. @lassek85 No. Wind turbines will never replace fossil fuels, as it would take a wind farm the size of Colorado to power the US alone, and wind is still an intermittent power source. It can do nothing but supplement. Tidal generators are more likely for a permanent solution, but once again, you've got a scale factor, and landlocked countries obviously haven't any access to it. That leaves nuclear, which is non-renewable, even if it is zero-carbon. Other emerging tech: google "solar roadways"

  22. @lassek85 Electric engines *are* less lossy energy-wise than gasoline, but you are plugging your car into about 60% coal power (in the US,) which is a less clean reaction than unleaded gas. Coupled with the environmental damage caused by the fabrication of huge batteries that need to be replaced and disposed of every 2-3 years, electric cars are arguably worse for the environment than gas. Much like our ethanol boom, its a cure worse than the disease. Takes 2.3 gallons of gas for 1 gal ethanol

  23. @lassek85 We are not depleting our resources at an alarming rate. What resource are we running out of? Most wood/paper comes from tree farms. Organic agriculture is exploding in popularity (at least for US consumers), and we haven't hit peak oil yet, despite what environmentalists keep prophesying. But what if we did? Then the price of oil would go up, recycled plastics cheaper, and more industries would move to that. Woopdie-doo. Overfishing *is* a problem though. Need to privatize the oceans.

  24. @lassek85 ITER is still experimental, and there are other technical hurdles for it (its not cold fusion, and therefore all the energy is expended at once, making it more difficult to harness). There's an experimental cold fusion system under development at MIT where individual particles of hydrogen are pushed close and excited with tiny high precision lasers, but once again, they don't know if it will ever be practical. And fusion is not renewable. You still have radioactive waste…

  25. @lassek85 …from your cooling system, and the water that they get the hydrogen from won't come back. 5-10 year batteries are good and all, but that's still a landfill problem, even if it accrues at half the speed. It doesn't look like you looked up solar roadways like I'd asked. I think this is the best solution. First off, you could have electric cars that are powered by the road – small (or no) batteries req'd. And roads alone could produce 170% of America's current power consumption.

  26. @lassek85 In the US most wood/paper does come from tree farms. They're privately owned forests that are logged sustainably, then replanted.

    I know fossil fuel consumption continues to rise, but we still haven't hit peak oil, so I don't understand what you mean by "depleting at an alarming rate" when we still have about 50 years left untapped in reserves. Ocean death I've already addressed. Privatizing the rainforests would save them too. See: The Tragedy Of The Commons (thats why they're dying)

  27. @lassek85 You can privatize the oceans. Its the responsible thing to do. If a person owns something, they take care of it and maintain it. If everybody owns it, everyone will grab what they can from it before someone else takes it. This is why surface fish populations are depleted, then they have to go lower and lower to get any fish, eventually destroying things like coral reefs. If sections of the ocean were privately owned, owners would do their best to ensure sustainable fishing there

  28. @lassek85 And no, I don't believe in regulation because it kills innovation, and right now regulation can't save us but innovation can. If you took the tech we have RIGHT NOW… even the cleanest tech for everything… we would still not be carbon-neutral. Therefore, we should do nothing that would hamper innovative companies. We should promote pro-market policies so we have a strong economy where startups can get the funding they need to try to make their ideas a reality – that's where innovat

  29. @lassek85 I'm not sure what you're saying here, really. First off, "big oil" has seen the writing on the wall. They're actually doing more renewable energy research than anyone else. For example, BP is the world leader in high-efficiency solar cells, and make wind turbines too. Exxon Mobil is working on fuel from algae. Shell has hydrogen pumps at their gas stations (in the US anyway).

    I think the consumer should choose which energy source is "best" for them, rather than some bureaucrat.

  30. @nublex – getting rid of money is a fool's errand. some form of money will always be replaced by another form because prices are not equal, but various. a glass of water, a house, a candy bar, a haircut. everything has to be paid for somehow. money gets the job done.

  31. @thisisbunk your brain is infected my the world wide monetary system – you should watch zietgiest addendum it may be an opener –

  32. @MrIzzyDizzy – seen all three. i debate this topic all the time with my friend who loves the venusproject idea and also understands my position. one of the very important differences is how we DEFINE our terms. monopoly fiat money is unjust and destructive. but sound money is what naturally occurs through voluntary trade to facilitate more complex trading. VProject won't make trade disappear, it's something people do and it is in fact the only way the venus project could be built.

  33. @thisisbunk – your friend doesnt represents the venus projects if she claims it has different interpretation of money – it means fiat money – but this is a moot point now anyway – the us would have to raise federal income tax to 52% today to pay next years interest – that would put the tax burden to around 75% over all if sales – and property taxes where not also raised by citys countys school boards or states (5 layers of taxing) – refinace -borrow from china- these will delay a while maybe

  34. @MrIzzyDizzy weather the project can be built with out barter -idk – barter with who? – when the system is implemented there will be no need to barter as this method will be based on maximum sustainble wealth for all -and that will be a very high level that only multimillionaires surpass now – everything people want and need will be made availble to everyone – barter supposes scarcity – i dont think a case can be made for scarcity in a rbe – if i have access to anything and you do too why barter

  35. @MrIzzyDizzy – please read my comment again. i know that venusproject is talking about fiat. if you support the venusproject, why would you want to continue funding the federal government and using fiat money?

  36. @MrIzzyDizzy – let's assume we can teleport to the future and skip everything that would need to happen to get to the working model that the venusproject is selling. let's assume venusproject works. venusproject can produce anything and everything? there is no such thing as scarcity for humans? really? whatever people want they can have?

  37. @thisisbunk i never said money or barter was needed for tvp i believe you said " its the only way tvp could be built" as to the standard of living -anything that a multi millionaire income could have – we will have access too yes." – when you have free renewable energy and robots working 24/7 365 – there are few limits – you couldnt have a yatchs for a 6 month vacation by yourself – nor could you deliver it via barter -access will be shared to many high luxury items like yatchs

  38. @MrIzzyDizzy – yes, in order to build tvp you will need to trade. whether or not tvp works or not is an unknown factor. promising something that doesn't exist yet is silly. the only way to know what will work is to test the products. until then, it's just a dream and scarcity is a fact of life.

  39. @HomemdaFaina – Google: 'Jeffrey Tucker Inside Job' for a nice expose on why that movie is good, but severely lacking some core insight that would help people understand the pernicious effect of unsound economic theory. Sound money is fundamental to a healthy economy.

  40. @infidelity89
    Could you stream a console? Or a game for that matter? It's not like the only thing they trade are dvd's…

  41. Why do you need money in a ''sharing economy?'' To keep elitism? To keep power, control,…by the coorperations? The only thing what you want is to slow down consumership, nothing else.

  42. Not once did I hear her say government should force any of this to happen, so it's clearly not communism. Socialist? Sure, but not state socialism, which is what everyone's knee-jerk thought is to the word "socialism", and which is morally wrong due to the force used. This is not state involved in the slightest, purely market. This is the good, classical view of socialism, where people voluntarily collaborate for similar goals. I'm a voluntarist and I have absolutely no problem with this idea.

  43. Go Rachel Botsman! Collaborative consumption is a great movement that provides options for everyone to live in ways that strengthens communities, empowers individuals (helping those that are time poor or resource poor) and in reducing our environmental impacts. NeighboursWeb is a new collaborative consumption Australian startup that is going to change the way you live! Check us out at Pozible…

  44. Sometimes the world is a seemingly cruel and harsh place. Bad things seem to happy every moment. Sooner or later though, especially with the aid of things like the internet, i believe there will be a shift in perception. I think soon we are going to reaffirm the idea that we are not on our own, not in our rooms, not in our horrible job, not in the mundane stress infested day to day routine we call our lives. I think we'll start to see how we are all here together, sharing this great experience.

  45. I like her passion and idealism on the topic, and although I agree that we will soon be sing an influx of this "sharing culture", it has been 3 years since this talk and I still don't know anybody who regularly uses zipcar or trading sites. It is a great concept in theory, but hyper consumerism and the need for ownership still prevails

  46. yes cars are only used for one hour a day on average, but that one hour of usage is at the same time for most people, i dont think there is much spare capacity at peak demand, denting the usefulness of collaborative consumption

  47. Somehow she pronounces the word before the big word stronger than itself. 6:20 , 6:46. makes me somehow unable to follow easily. But still great content!

  48. Collaborative consumption would most definately exist in a totally free market, however it would not be the only form of economic trade.

  49. Well.. Why doesn't she just come right out and say it!? Money sucks, capitalism, is destroying the planet, ownership is a contrived obsolete notion, private property is an illusion and we are in need of an entirely new socioeconomic system! Oh well.. Still a great video 😀 I guess if she mentioned the Zeitgeist Movement or The Venus Project she would get banned from Ted Talk.. So this is at least getting people to think.

  50. Life sucks. My good friend has started going out with a ten as 8 weeks back he registered to a site named Master Attraction (Google it if you wish to learn more.) I'm so jealous because I wish to fall madly in love too. How come it's so hard? I'm gonna take a peek at this Jake Ayres man's information to check out if it may help someone like me. Odd point is, my friend previously had Zero results with girls. How does one improve so swiftly? His lady's like a model…

  51. You will know that horrible point when your brother (who’s been a loser forever, I’ve gotta tell you) gets an amazing girl to fall for him in, like a couple of weeks? Absolutely, that happened. I realize I ought to think well done, but I wish it was me. He said he learned from the Cupid Love System (Search in Google for it). I wish to hide in a cave instantly.

  52. I'm really surprised she didn't mention ESCROW? (funds held by a third party until the buyer receives goods and is happy) This is how China does most of its business & how online megastores like AliExpress exist. Even paypal finally implemented a 'pay on delivery option' because they totally get it so kudos to them. Even scoring systems although very useful are still vulnerable. In my experience an escrow service & scoring system provides the best security for us, the consumer.

  53. They are trying to move the center of gravity for sovereignty from the individual to the collective. Anything organic (like sharing) must be controlled and mandated.
     
    They try to dignify the damage Amazon is doing to entrepreneurship by reclassifying the industry. The placement of Agenda 21 (Mean Green Meme) and ICLEI to be trendy mainstream.
    #SocialEngineering #Agenda21 #ICLEI #BadScience #Sovereignty #Communism  

  54. Trendy Isn't It? Redefining What's Yours, Mine and Ours!
    Manipulative Transformation of the Definition of Sharing and Ownership to Resource and its Management
    These people despise groups who may challenge them.

    Of course, all in the name of saving the Earth! And so touchy feely trendy to boot! Soon we won't be able to drive a car on our own!
    h/t: @Derek Jones

    They are trying to move the center of gravity for sovereignty from the individual to the collective. Anything organic (like sharing) must be controlled and mandated.
     
    They try to dignify the damage Amazon is doing to entrepreneurship by reclassifying the industry. The placement of Agenda 21 (Mean Green Meme) and ICLEI to be trendy mainstream.
    #SocialEngineering #Agenda21 #ICLEI #Sovereignty #Communism #MeanGreenMeme   #CultureOfFearAndControl #Fraud  

  55. she is not talking about collectivism but barter and trade across the borders. the ability to use what you have to make money on it or gaining something else you value more from someone else. collectivism would be they take the money and dvd from you by force and give to themselves or someone else for a fee to themselves. or they decide what when how and what your allowed to keep and barter away or what they just take, the 100 dollars would just be taken away from you and you would get nothing in return no interest no nothing.

  56. This video has great evidence in support of the resource based economy proposed by the Venus Project and advocated for by the Zeitgeist Movement.

  57. All very well, if a bit overhyped. I think we all know these trends are well under way. The really interesting questions though are about deflation, the future of money and the tax base as well as the monetization, and therefore production, of asynchronous dematerialized goods and services. My impression is that we don't even know how to think about this, but that it isn't going to be an uneventful ride.

    It also should be pointed out that access to the sharing economy requires having something to share, as well as trivial things like leisure time and internet access. It similarly requires having sufficient motivation to offer to share, a motivation which presumably derives from the value of reciprocity. Absent redistribution that is going to leave many shareable goods out of the sharing economy and exclude many people from it. What are the social implications of this?

  58. I agree that collaborative consumption is here to stay but not for the stupid utopian dream of having community and "sharing" with others but mainly because it is affordable and convenient.

    People (speaking in generalization and macroscopic scale) don't Uber to connect with the driver, it's because they need a ride, it's a ride-sharing service and not car-sharing service. While it's seen as economic for a car to be used by two or more persons, it fulfills only the need of the customer, while the other party driving around not because of their pure angelic intention to give people they don't know rides, but simply for the sake of gaining profits.

    When it comes to sharing with strangers you need a strong motivation to do the deed (money). In this modern society with Fordism that led to mass consumption most people are raised and socialized to consume and own things. Objects help us identify ourselves, like fashion help people to express themselves. Now, it's interesting to look at the shift of ownership to access, but it's stupid to get carried away with the idea of economy based on trust of human goodness or man's concern for the good of society (quoting Sartre there)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *