[ThomPete]

So great piece with a lot of valid criticism but I also feels like it keeps judging the speech on a claim it doesn't continue to make.

The author continues judging the speech as a claim to counter capitalism when in fact the speaker comes clean early on. This is unfortunate because it muddles the argument.

The way I understand the argument its more that instead of companies making money on individuals its individuals making money on each other. It's removing the middle man so to speak.

For instance when he write

"The laws that he is talking about are licensing laws and other laws put in place to protect employees, customers, and neighbourhoods. These laws are not all perfect. But the sharing economy has nothing to replace them beyond magical thinking about “trust” (with little accountability)."

He is basically cherry picking. There is also quite a few laws that are actually hindering progress.

Technology does move faster than legislation.

[jarofgreen]

> There is also quite a few laws that are actually hindering progress.

Definitely. I think this is one of those areas where the right way lies somewhere in the middle between the two extreme positions. Yes there are a lot of shit laws - but there are also a lot of great laws enacted for citizen protection and we should be careful this joyful wave of "disruption" does not throw the baby out with the bath water.