This idea even has support from traditional microeconomics. Something called the Zero-Profit Theorem states that as knowledge of the market approaches 'full knowledge', economic profits for suppliers approaches zero, and that this is in fact the equilibrium point of the market. That's a convoluted way of saying that no matter what you produce or supply, you make the same amount of money. Since profit maximization becomes meaningless, one would instead maximize happiness or well-being by what one produces [the economic theory doesn't mention this, but this is of course the natural conclusion for the individual]. BTW, RyanAir is a horrible airline, and they've grown dramatically because new customers don't know that until they fly. I would guess that this type of player in the gift economy keeps or drives prices up, since they justify the adage 'you get what you pay for'. I'd suggest that the gift economy only works when you produce a good or service that you can't sell, either because your customer couldn't afford it or because what you're actually supplying is more subtle and approaching the range of 'priceless'. This is the substance of how Dr. V gave world-class eye surgeries to poor villagers, and how Charityfocus gave inspired websites to non-profits!