I keep turning the concepts scarcity and abundance in my head. Mind games are tidier when you think in the purest, most extreme forms. Let's consider the human condition to be constant flight from scarcity and constant seeking of abundance. There are two ways to get to that abundance:
I get some stuff, call it mine, and guard it. Now I’m in control. The more stuff I call my own, the safer I am from a world of scarcity. Just about everybody in America and most capitalist societies can identify with this instinct. And the result is that we are incredible hoarders and have recently doubled the amount of physical stuff we buy, doubled the weight of stuff we put into landfills, and built huge amounts of stuff-storage facilities across our country (see Juliet Schorr’s work).
Our legal systems and corporate protection of intellectual property follows these same instincts. We write patents to be absolutely as broad as possible so that someday, we’ll have access to any future value that might possibly be found in these ideas – whether or not we think up this future value, whether it is in our area of business, whether or not it is in our geography of interest. All ours.
Another perspective on scarcity-avoidance is exactly the opposite. Everything I get, I pool with my community. It is all ours. When things are going good, I contribute. When things are going badly, I am protected by the good fortune of others in my community. We recognize this approach in socialist and communist societies.
It’s curious that both approaches are trying to protect and maximize periods of abundance, and they are exactly opposite from one another.
Academics have refined the idea of stuff to think about “rivalrous” as opposed to “non-rivalrous” goods. Rivalrous goods are ones that we can’t use at the same time, or that get used up. My stash of fancy English toffee is rivalrous. If I don’t hide it, my kids will see it as something available to the “family community” and eat it all up. My abundance quickly becomes my scarcity. Conversely, sitting in the sun on a beautiful spring day: non-rivalrous. Plenty of sun, plenty of space.
Once upon a time, TV viewing was rivalrous. Your oldest brother always got to choose, and that was it. Today, we have Tivo, we have hulu, we have many TVs and PCs. TV-show watching is non-rivalrous.
Zipcar is another example of how we turned what was perceived as a rivalrous good – cars, that I needed to own in order to feel abundance – into a (mostly) non-rivalrous one. There is always a car around the corner when you need it; why bother to own one and have it sit idle much of the day?
So what do I conclude about the Western solution to our search for abundance through ownership?
- Not everything is rivalrous, even though our knee-jerk reaction is to treat everything this way.
- There is a lot of wasted value – an enormous amount of excess capacity is going idle because of our erroneous prejudice.
- Technology can turn rivalrous goods into non-rivalrous ones.
Next: How Sharing Increases Innovation
Comments
Neal Gorenflo wrote on 05.05.10, 7:16pm:
Robin, I like how you simplify the issue here. Makes me think that there's somethings you can't share:
-that heart medicine you need to live
-food and water below a level that can sustain you
-the family heirloom that is irreplaceable
Some things are silly to buy in the first place. Art is essence, so indulging in a lifestyle of excess is the definition of leading an artless life*. Therefore, who cares if they're nonrival or not. You only showcase your lack of imagination by buying them:
-6,000 pairs of shoes
-a $10,000 watch
-a McMansion built where a perfectly good house used to be
And that leaves everything else, which is a hell of a lot. This gives many of us the opportunity to be distributors of wealth. To a large extent, wealth redistribution can be peer-produced.
On the other hand, Will also makes a good point, which is that while we're learning how to share luxuries (cars), we're soon going to have to learn to share vitals. And this is not a lifestyle consideration. This can't be peer produced. It's deeply political. We will not be able to share vital resources unless we learn to share power first. A radical structuring of society is needed to enable this.
*Note that excess is a part of the human experience, like feast and festivals, but a day-to-day lifestyle of excess is arguably an aberration.
Felix Pleșoianu wrote on 05.06.10, 9:57pm:
"It’s curious that both approaches are trying to protect and maximize periods of abundance, and they are exactly opposite from one another."
The difference is that capitalism works to some degree, while socialism fails horribly. And I say this as someone who grew up under a Communist regime.
What does work is the kind of initiatives you're highlighting here: recognizing where sharing makes sense, and doing it. And that's where a lot of people fail: look at the ongoing copyright wars. But we're all learning, if slowly.
I am troubled by the choice of photo used for this story. The photo shifts the onus of too much stuff on persons whose collection of gear might resemble that in the photo. Typically the "left" begins its arguments with some degree of self loathing, suggesting that "we" must change our behavior and in so doing leaves the most egregious abusers off the hook. Collections of stuff are not all the same. Take for example this excerpt from a NewYork magazine article:
Christian Louboutin says his business grew by double digits in 2009, which was generally a horrible year for anyone trying to sell an item of luxury apparel. He tells the new issue of Vanity Fair that he owes a lot of his sales (340,000 pairs of shoes a year) to Danielle Steel, who is said to have 6,000 pairs of the shoes.
“She comes to Paris, and she literally buys everything. Then she flies back to New York, says, ‘I’m a little disappointed — there’s nothing in the store,’ and walks out with 80 pairs,” he grinned. “She is super."
A picture of Ms Steel's closet might make a better point. It could lead to a discussion of the hoarding of more vital stuff. Let's imagine a world in which the stuff of water is in scarcity. One is going to have to argue for a fair and equitable distribution of that vital necessity. In so doing one would have to come to terms with swimming pools, golf courses, sweeping lawns, car washing, and other water uses of the most consumptive abusers. We might have to prioritize water use and in so doing actually limit the gross consumption of this commodity regardless of the users ability to pay. To do that is going to require policy shifts. To do that is going to require political action.