"unregulated labour producing some income is preferable to persistent"
It's just like saying that slavery is good because at least you may have a roof and some food. And that's exactly what they like you to think.
No one denies having some kind of income is bad. The issue is not letting some (big) entities take full advantage of it, exploiting people in dire need, and use them one against the other to maximize their revenues, while shifting that entrepreneurial risk (which is a key ingredient of a working capitalism, because it offsets greed, for example) to the weakest ring, and bypassing rules other are forced to obey, turning it into unfair competition which is another thing that breaks a working capitalism.
"Disruptive" doesn't mean "better". And doesn't mean "new" also. As pointed out, the "sharing economy" model is not new at all. It's an old one exactly based on world of a few affluent people controlling the resources, and many other needing to compete for those resources. It's far easy to exploit badly people in such a situation, and that's why XVIII century France collapsed in a bloodbath, and the regulation started to be applied to endow people with rights, and avoid the worst exploiting.
Capitalism does work, as long as you keep it in a "green zone" where most people, and not just too few ones, take advantage of it. If you let greed shift it into a red zone, where a few people backed by interested politicians believe they can exploit people at will and push them lower and lower, you risk one day heads start rolling, or make communist ideas so appealing people will turn themselves into slaves like in the old CCCP...
Biting the hand that feeds IT
