neal gorenflo

neal gorenflo

Neal is co-founder of shareable.

one intro to him here:

Shareable, Ouisharefest 2014 Paris

seats to meet – again much like app function – world widely glocal..

book: sharing cities



shared by Bert Ola – Martijn of crowd expedition interviewing Neal –  mar 2015:

my drive is just – wanting more people along with me for this ride..

the american dream was about free time..

we lost sight of that dream.. the dream became about something else.. about accumulation.. about salary…

we can re think things…

12 min – ie: coops, open value network, block chain

coops, block chain

they have created – policies for shareable cities

americans spend $9000 on cars – one car shared takes car of 15 people

23 min – create ecosystems (in cities) where it’s easy to start coops

27 min – the idealists are the practical people.. the impossible is necessary


Neal’s interview in David Passiak‘s empower:

p 85 – part 2 – sharing

p 87


DP: Many readers of this book want to share more, but might feel stuck in a job they don’t like or they just don’t know where to start. We tend to get trapped into this conventional way of think- ing that sharing is something we do part time, instead of being an essential part of who we are, what we do, and how we interact with the world.

I would love to start this interview with your personal story, because it is so powerful and inspiring. You had an epiphany that led you to leave the corporate world. Can you tell us a bit about that experience and the realizations you had on how to live a more meaningful life?

NG: June 2004, it was a sunny Saturday afternoon and I was stay- ing at the NH Hotel in Brussels. I had been travelling a lot working for a big multinational corporation, DHL, part of the backbone of  the global economy. I ate a hearty European breakfast and headed out on a jog through my normal route in this business park. When I got to the rst turn at the top of the hill, I stopped in a parking lot of a warehouse.

Then something unexpected happened—I started to cry. I real- ized this was not what I wanted to do with my life and that I would never realize my creative potential on this corporate path. I would not have the type of relationships I want, become the type of person I want to be, do meaningful work, or be part of a real community.

p 88

This is not the way to get what we really want out of life, which is a basic desire to become a fully realized human being. This wasn’t just about me, but also feeling that pain in others.

exactly.. deep enough.. to what

I made a decision on the spot to change my life and do whatever I could to create a world where it was easy to nd love and friend- ship, community and meaningful work, and

where every day could be filled with authentic human connection.

Except, I didn’t know how to do that. I kept asking myself, “What should I do?” and I didn’t have an answer. I made a vow to find out. I ran back to my hotel room, sent in my letter of resignation, and booked the first flight home to start a new life.

DP: I agree 100% that many people want to break out of the corporate world but don’t know what to do

begs we model a nother way.. that 7bn could leap to.. today

p 8 9

NG: It was helpful to have some experience, but I would say that the most powerful thing going for me is my level of commitment.

*It is deep and real, and it goes to the marrow of my bone and the core of my soul.

I had this unexpected a-ha moment that I didn’t ask for.

**I listened to it and acted on it.

*yes that.. and that’s exactly why we can’t have asks.. et al.. it has to be the person’s bone marrow.. soul core.. – deep enough.. then simple enough to access and in an ecosystem open enough to keep it free..

**quiet enough ness

Ask questions, be curious, listen and be open, particularly to what comes through you. One of my favorite quotes is by Martha Gra- ham, the famous American modern dancer and one of the greatest artists in the 20th century:

There is a vitality, a life force, an energy, a quickening that is trans- lated through you into action, and because there is only one of you in all of time, this expression is unique. And if you block it, it will never exist through any other medium, and be lost. The world will not have it. It is not your business to determine how good it is, nor how valu- able, nor how it compares with other expressions. It is your busi- ness to keep it yours, clearly and directly, to keep the channel open.

That’s what I would say to anyone in a similar situation as I was. The change can’t come from just your intellect. The mind can help, but there has to be a spiritual shift, and that *takes time.

so that’s our goal.. to shorten that *lag time.. between intention/curiosity and action/connection.. for 7 bn people.. everyday.. then we’ll see/grok exponentiation..

we can do that.. we can facil that..

we can’t not.. [ie: as i write this.. 100 more deaths in syria.. car bomb.. and that’s only the beginning of the list.. campos wake up law et al]

p 91

because I experienced the transformation personally. So have many of the people at Share- able. It is not just an idea to talk about. Sharing is our experience, and it’s life changing, so we want others to experience it too.

we can cut thru a lot of crap B & b and make this happen for everybody.. the dance becomes.. not even a pay back ness.. if we include the entire world..

You are not commanding people to do something. Instead, you make the invitation to join in what you are doing and it’s the power of your purpose that makes the invitation attractive.

i think this is killing us.. and i think that’s the opp we have today.. that we’ve never had before.. we don’t have to call people .. to join .. if we’re all connected.. ie: hlb.. no one needs to be recruiting..

p 92

NG: I think we see a limited and unambitious exploration publicly around the future of work that centers on how we can make this freedom-limiting institution better or make the cage more com- fortable. This seems completely backwards and un-American in the sense that it’s anti-freedom. It shows how conditioned we are in this economy that we cannot think beyond a job.

spot on.. spinach or rock and graeber job less law et al

In a sense, this is like going backwards to before the 19th cen- tury. The labor movement had some focus on improving wages and working conditions, but the priority was to shorten the workweek over time until there was no work. In other words, the goal was freedom through prosperity and abundance.

The real question we should ask about the future of work is: How do you get from a job to no job?


and i think.. like this: we model a nother way

Let’s try to imagine it from our contemporary situation. We have lots of on-demand workers on peer-to-peer platforms and things like InstaCart delivering groceries, etc. One possible transforma- tion that is partially under way is these platforms could give their stakeholders (the users and providers) a say and an ownership stake. This would help platforms remain *competitive. This kind of shift would allow you to go from just being a worker on a plat- form to also being an **owner and a decision-maker, and perhaps have a say and stake in multiple platforms.



we have to disengage from irrelevants

p 93

NG: Yes, exactly. Imagine you are an owner and decision-maker in platforms, instead of working for wages.


Perhaps you occa- sionally work to get some income but maybe you are getting divi- dends or building up equity to help these platforms be successful.


That stake in ownership also provides *additional incentives for you to work harder, be loyal, *refer friends and family, and so on. Ownership could create more sustainable ***business models instead of this hyper growth fueled by venture capital that is ultimately unsustainable.

*killer and **killer and ***killer.. such deep soul ness.. and we still can’t let go..

That’s a vision for platforms. But you can have a similar arrange- ment for housing, food, and transportation using less technology- intensive modes like cooperatives. Instead of buying what you need by working and earning wages, you are a member of a community that creates, manages, and uses a shared asset—i.e., a commons— that provides you bene ts like food, water, electricity, transporta- tion, housing, etc. That is where we need to go.

agreed.. via have/need ness .. we can’t be measuring transactions.. ie: 10 day care ness

p 94

want free time to develop yourself, which in turn develops into capacity to contribute even more to the community.

indeed.. luxury.. leading to eudaimoniative surplus.. how..? gershenfeld something else law

let’s do this firstfree art-ists.

You have support for what you want to gift to the world, but you are creating a gift that only you can give to your community. That’s a reality that already exists in part, but

how can we create a world where everyone has a shot at that reality?

like this..

NG: First, the idea of a Sharing City hasn’t been defined and is in some ways contested. Corporations have grabbed hold of it and are defining it in a certain way, and nonprofit organizations like Shareable have a different perspective.

Our view is that a Sharing City is defined primarily as a commons rather than a marketplace or a political or governmental entity. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a market; it’s that the commons is dominant. Examples of commons are things like public parks and cooperatives, co-working and hacker spaces, time banks and tool libraries.

A complete Sharing City doesn’t exist in any one place, but parts of it exist everywhere. The effort we engage in is to bring all those pieces together into a singular vision. Every function of the city can be operated as a commons, from utilities and transportation, to food and housing—people working together as peers in a com- mons can manage most if not all of a city.

exactly.. let’s do it.. not partial ..for (blank)’s sake

p 97

believe we’re entering an era where the community is becoming the hero. They are the central change makers. It’s people coming together voluntarily, not because anyone tells them to do it, but because they choose to do it.

This is heroic. This is what we should admire in society. Collective actions like this lead to the type of answers that I sought when I left my job in search of a more meaningful and connected life. We can think big about changing the world through Sharing Cities, and we can start locally with small projects in our neighborhood. It is all interconnected. That is the power of sharing.




Check out my interview (1 hr video)  @reinventnet about #sharingcities & social capital:…

6 min – when you help people do what they’re dying to do.. you make best of friends.. transformational.. not transactional..t

8 min – practice a new reality.. people lived into it.. connected based on purpose.. get together on a new level based on trust..

imagine that for 7 bn everyday – rev of everyday life

ie: hlb via 2 convos that io dance.. as the day..[aka: not part\ial.. for (blank)’s sake…]..  a nother way

10 min – 2008 – we don’t need to start anything.. there is already a sharing trend.. not recognized as a movement.. that no one has connected the dots.. and put a narrative around it

12 min – 2 elements: 1\ sustainability 2\ humanity..  the transformational ness

13 min – working together.. makes higher level of cohesion.. and this is what makes communities really resilient

from teaching experience with group work.. may seem better for a bit.. but begs we zoom out and let go.. to the max.. ie: people aren’t taking turns working on each other’s projects.. we listen to each voice/curiosity .. everyday.. and connect people by that.. that’s the energy we’re missing (the thurman alive and zinn energy mash up)

the belonging and human connection piece – peter

14 min – what distinguishes us as species.. we share and collab.. share more when less abundance..

affluence w/o abundance

15 min – open was a sharing paradigm.. coops.. commons..

17 min – sharing econ.. meaning changed over time.. in early days.. had social/environ connotations front and center.. so very diverse..then the story was.. just the business/tech piece.. then.. not even diverse in terms of businesses.. ie: uber/airbnb.. and that became synonymous w sharing econ

19 min – you can only control a message for so long.. media gets a hold of it.. and they have a bias

20 min- so we started talking nabout sharing cities/coops.. that was more about the transformation that was possible

23 min – sharing cities.. we needed our own political econ.. started looking at commons.. (pool of assets, group of users, governing over it)

25 min – elinor – people better to manage resource than market/govt.. her work being translated into urban complex..


26 min – christian iaione – worked on project


32 min – we want to create a world that can contain many worlds.. we don’t want the commons to be an end all.. replacement.. for everything.. we just want it to be heightened

38 min – ie: platform coops..

53 min – the time is now.. about you and i here.. to really appreciate that.. just to enjoy life.. right now we’re in s ca and having this cool convo..

we need more man .. ie: rohinga et al


on team human

about book: sharing cities

TeamHuman (@teamhumanshow) tweeted at 6:06 AM – 25 Oct 2017 :

Ep. 60 is up! @Shareable’s @gorenflo joins @rushkoff to discuss new book Sharing Cities Activating the Urban Commons (

7 min – restore human civilization to human scale.. easiest place to start.. already happening.. in the human city.. – douglas

10 min – almost everything that happen in cities can be done on a coop level – neal

commons is the political economy.. elinor won nobel peace.. because she showed local

makes me think of jason – saying people who win noble (are good people) but win for something that will perpetuate status quo

trying to undermine tina.. no alt to capital

commons: 1\resource that’s shared  2\users 3\governance system

ie: ccm

24 min – if people could be close to enough ie’s that look/feel like them – douglas

25 min – book/site as catalogue of solutions ready to be taken

30 min – start to measure different things.. happiness.. real wealth

can you measure and still have it be a commons..  and can you measure happiness..?

31 min – sharing city seoul.. mainstream sharing in megacity over 10 mn people.. mayor – sharing guy and human rights lawyer by trade.. econ stagnation.. highest suicide.. sees sharing as method to address all those.. a shape of things to come.. in terms of policy/investment/programs..

33 min  – commons not to exclusion of state and market.. harmonized..

34 min – has to be negotiated into existence w what is already there.. one of key challenges..

why assume market has to be there.. when it wasn’t for most of our human existence..?

36 min – markets are good for p2p exchange – douglas

g hardin paper.. key about tragedy of commons.. but key was.. that wasn’t a commons at all

what you’re describing doesn’t sound like one .. i don’t think you can common if there’s any measuring of transactions.. tallying of jobs/efforts..


Good ? Monitoring is part of Ostrom’s 8 commons design principles, but it can be relational. Ex. neighbors hint before sanctions are consid.

perhaps we reconsider that

monitoring relations doesn’t seem relational.. ie: ten day care ness et al

sanctions: 1\a threatened penalty for disobeying a law or rule. 2\official permission or approval for an action.

that doesn’t sound very relational either.. perhaps try gershenfeld sel .. via 2 convos

ie: hlb via 2 convos that io dance.. as the day..[aka: not part\ial.. for (blank)’s sake…]..  a nother way

perhaps why we haven’t yet gotten to equity.. we haven’t let go of commoning ness..


find/follow Neal:
link twitter


money less

radical econ

city ness