I kind of feel as if a false dichotomy is at work in this article, and the ensuing discussion: either we continue as wage-slaves for corporations, or else we become subsidized individuals making strictly digital products for personal fulfillment. One of the greatest losses to humanity inflicted by the age of mechanical reproduction was that of the artisan, and I think that if Rushkoff's recommendations for the renegotiation of goods for services were put into place, we would see this class rise again, and with it, hopefully, a renaissance of individual genius and discovery. This kind of work, after all, is deeply fulfilling to the individual, whose personal interests dictate the trajectory of accomplishment, whose skill determines its scope, and whose accomplishments result in objects, whether concrete or ephemeral, which can be put to use, sold, consumed, etc. It seems to me that certain developments in local markets, such as the resurgence of small, local farms, dairies, ranches, etc., are evidence that the return of such barter economies would work both to enrich peoples lives (and diets) and to re-infuse their lives with purpose and dignity. The truly intriguing question this article poses is whether the development of these new micro-markets will occur in spite of increasingly outmoded economic systems, or in accordance with new ones. My guess? The former.