The “sharing economy” is a fad, for the simple reason that no marketplace in pursuit of a new proxy of freedom will be renewable without paradoxical rules needed to secure the trust of our collective interests from being damaged by the vile-maxim of bad actors present in all marketplaces.
Regardless of the economic construct to which one applies freedom, freedom cannot exist without rules. In the same paradoxical way, living cannot exist without death. And sustainability cannot exist without renewability, but I digress. Laws must be implemented and centrally maintained to protect the collective trust in the marketplace from being eroded by the (usually) few participants set out to take such a marketplace for a selfish ride, and to yield untrustworthy consequences for the innocent others.
Generally, the government is the arbiter of the paradox of freedom, the protector of our collective interest and trust in the marketplaces the private-sector builds. Granted, often ill-performing. Hence the opulent “greater-fool” window of opportunity exposed by the likes of Uber and Airbnb. Not in the least because our government still treats freedom as an afterthought, stuck in a flat-world of absolutism, comfortably ignoring the multidimensional aspects of freedom to each his own. But just because the government does a lousy job establishing and reinventing collective arbitrage does not mean the private sector is better at it. Bad and nonexistent private-sector arbitrage abound.
Just be aware, the “sharing economy” is nothing more than a clever ploy to convey to the innocent that real freedom is a free-for-all and magically does not require arbitrage. While right under the noses of participants the arbitrage of said marketplace has been moved from a democratically vetted institution we can control, the people’s government, to an oligarchically controlled private-sector company we cannot. The latter is a more grandiose denial of the diverse freedoms and sovereignties to encircle the world.
So, without the embedded establishment of the arbitrage by and for the participants, the “sharing economy” is merely a new name for an old trick; the systematic denial of freedom by selling a new make-believe version of it. The only good thing about the “sharing economy” is that its ploy will eventually spur our government to step up its game, but only when enough sh*t has hit the proverbial fan. Expect a post-mortem of new regulations.
To answer the question, how quickly we recognize the “sharing economy” as an economic fallacy will determine how quickly we kill its future.
Given our unique attraction to all-things-make-believe (like the unbelievable popularity of fake “wrestling” of the WWE, over the real Mixed Martial Arts style of fighting), expect reality to take a while to sink in.
I suggest you don’t hold your breath.