[chralieboy]

"Sharing economy" is just the marketing term for it. If I share a bench with you, I'm not charging you for the privilege. I agree that it is the word we use, but it doesn't accurately communicate what we're talking about.

It's a difficult line to walk. On the one hand, sharing sounds nice. Even as capitalists we are suspicious of efforts to make a profit. And many of the "sharing economy" services are about using things that you personally own and selling use of them to the public.

On the other hand, when AirBnB/Uber/etc try to make an economic argument for their services, it is clearly not around sharing. We're exchanging value (my empty home, parked car, etc.) for value (your dollars, as a proxy for work you have done.)

[bduerst]

I get that you're trying to break down "sharing economy" by the semantics of the word "share", but even in your hypothetical the bench is [presumably] owned by the city, who has granted already access to it for everyone.

By sharing access to economic goods and services that were previously unavailable, waste from market inefficiencies are being eliminated. Just because companies are profiting from this waste elimination doesn't negate the fact that shared economies can still be beneficial.

Even so, considering the size of these markets now, I don't think people are going to confuse "Sharing economy" with altruism.

[geebee]

People have chanted "sharing is caring" at demonstrations against greater regulations and restrictions on short term rentals. I think we're stepping close to a deliberate ambiguity.

[spikels]

I used to share a ski house in Tahoe. Should I expect to pay part of the rent or not?

I think the term "share" is strictly agnostic on who pays but also does have a gifting connotation that appeals to marketing. I have no problem with its use here but if there is a better word what is it?