6 ms·

>The fight against Airbnb is a symbolic fight for the left winged parties in the city. That is just bullshit. The people complaining about their AirBnB neighbo

by ralfn 5y ago

>The fight against Airbnb is a symbolic fight for the left winged parties in the city. That is just bullshit. The people complaining about their AirBnB neighbours are mostly in Zuid. Definitely in not Social housing. Please don't start projecting left/right schoolyard tribe politics in an international context. You embarrass our country. Usage of the phrase "left" and "right" is already dumb when Americans do it. But at least with their first past the pole democracy it is somewhat fitting. We have many political parties that differ in more than one dimension. From immigration to taxation to gay rights. Just go back to Dumpert already.

mercy_dude 5y ago
I agree using right vs left is dumb on occasions but OP has a point. Liberals (at least in US/Canada) used to be the one who would care about working middle class and their living conditions. In US and Canada all major North American cities(almost all of which I had left leaning politicians) the prices have exploded. You hear for example Canadian prime minister making it election pledge to make housing affordable, when under the same leadership housing prices have gone up 100% over 5yrs in many areas. So there is one of two things happening here - left is now out of touch with what’s really happening with middle class in North America who can’t afford a house without parents help and thus many choose not to start family etc or they cater to house owning rich upper middle class who have increasingly become their base.
- ricardobeat 5y ago
  It’s quite hard to follow your line of reasoning here. Unless you can explain how “leftist” policies have led to housing inflation, the fact prices have gone up doesn’t seem to contradict your PM pledging to reduce them.
  - _v7gu 5y ago
    Expansive immigration+highly regulated housing. Car-dependent city building which forces people who can't afford cars to live in the city. Small apartments and multi-home houses being regulated out of existence which push immigrants into windowless basements.
- ralfn 5y ago
  > Liberals (at least in US/Canada) used to be the one who would care about working middle class and their living conditions. This confusion is understandable, but liberals never cared about the working middle class. Its just that in the US, the democratic party is a big tent of liberals, socialists and progressives, and the other side is a big tent of evangenicals, libertarians and conservative. The ones that (claim to) care about the working class are the socialists. Liberalism comes from the French revolution, and is exported to the world through Amsterdam (appropiate in this topic!) and its value system is the foundation of modern day capitalism and enterpreneurship by free individuals (no matter how you pray or what you say) in a republic (every vote equal). So standard, you take it for granted. You find the same disconnect between values in the other tent. Libertarians preaching small government for a republic ticket, even though every republican president has ended up spending more money than any president before. One of the big downsides of first-past-the-pole is that a political world simplified to just two sides, doesn't do most people justice. Don't vote for the democrats if you want socialism. Don't vote for the republicans if you want libertarianism. Evangelicals and progressives on the other hand, can do bussiness with the liberals and conservatives, since what they want isn't incompatible. Liberals hear progressives talk about 'inclusion' and they hear 'more customers' (hello, rich gay couples) or 'cheap labour' (hello, poor immigrants) and they get all wet in their stock portfolio. Sidenote: If you ever wonder what America would look like when its just libertarians and socialists having to come together .. its called Burning Man, where autonomous libertarians feed socialist hippies, without liberal transactions or conservative judgment.
toshk 5y ago
GroenLinks has always been the most outspoken against Airbnb. Complaints are probably heaviest in West and not South. But it doesn't matter where, the green left is the most dominant party under upper middle class, together with D66. And indeed I wrote it in a way that complaining people led to the fight against Airbnb but I think there are many more reasons. GroenLinks ideology is definitely not caused by that to be sure. And whether you agree with their policies or not. It's hard to argue against that they at least have made some symbolic political moves, for instance the removal of Iamsterdam because the I was to indivualistic.
- ralfn 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - toshk 5y ago
    Do you always attack people so personal? "Education on me has been wasted" :)? I said GroenLinks was dominant under upper white middle class. Which it is since it's the biggest party in the council at the moment and was by far the most popular in White upper class neighborhoods like west and ijburg last local elections. And is by far, with it's dominant leader, the most dominant voice in the current council; to call them left is not a stretch, it's in their name. D66 likes to join coalitions and then mostly leans in the direction of the dominant party, the house restrictions policy for sure can be described as anti capitalistic since they limit the free use of your capital (,house). For instance needing a permit to live with more then 3 adults in your own house is a new law they passed last year. Or only allowing buyers that will live in the houses. I don't agree or disagree with all policies; but it's definitely not a stretch for me to classify them as left.
    - ralfn 5y ago
      >Do you always attack people so personal? "Education on me has been wasted" :)? I specifically take offence that you were suggesting on a forum like this that Amsterdam is some anti-capitalist stronghold, which is just ridiculous, and if you spread that notion in a place like this, you are doing economic harm to the Netherlands, which i am assuming you are part of. So that would be .. not so smart. >I said GroenLinks was dominant under upper white middle class It's not though. It's dominant under all those students here. Amsterdam is also a student city. Which makes sense, since its a progressive environmentally reactionary party, but their demographics dont really extend beyond 30. >Which it is since it's the biggest party in the council at the moment We don't have a first past the pole system, so 'biggest' doesn't mean anything. No single party has a majority. In terms of ideologies there is a progressive majority, there is a capitalist majority, there is an environmental majority. The previous city election had a lot of VVDers voting for GL because they want to kick the cars out of the center. (which would double the property value of most real estate there) But now compare those results to the results of the general election in Amsterdam, where they are just the 3rd party, after both D66 and the VVD. >And is by far, with it's dominant leader, the most dominant voice in the current council; to call them left is not a stretch, it's in their name. Femke is not dominant at all. She doesn't actually set the policy, she reports to the Hague. Thats how a mayor works in the Netherlands. The central government generally doesn't want to deal with anyone not in the inner circle of national politics. And making her mayor was Rutte trying to buy some votes in the 1st chamber, when his coalition didn't have a majority there any more. She does have the ability to veto in her position, or to give a direct order to the police, and she has used it twice so far. The first time was when the city councel wanted to ban booze on boots in the canals, and she considered it unenforceable and ridiculous. The other was quite recently, when she banned fireworks for this New Years Eve. In both cases, i suspect she did that based on direct feedback by the police deparment. >the house restrictions policy for sure can be described as anti capitalistic since they limit the free use of your capital (,house) The basis of capitalism are: - ability to incorporate (the company itself being a legal entity) - contract law (the words in the contract holier than any human relationship) - state monopoly on violence (enforcing the exact words in the contract) - regulated and well defined ability to own things (esspecially real-estate) If cars weren't regulated, you wouldn't dare buy one. If hotels aren't regulated, tourists wouldn't dare to come. You need the gilds, you need a waag, you need a court and a city hall where all the merchants can use a democratic process to avoid the tragedy of the commons. So, your example. You don't own the land. It's all a lease. A lease of which the terms can change at will, by the true property owner, which is the city of Amsterdam, which is owned by the state. The merchant of Amsterdam democratically decided they prefer less AirBnB, because it means more monies on average. Because tourists are poor, and residents are rich. >Or only allowing buyers that will live in the houses. Again, the city buys what it wants. It wants a high income earner to come live in Amsterdam, and they are much more likely to do that, when they aren't burning their rent. Same thing with social housing. We all need nurses, teachers and police officers. If they can't live here, the city can't hire them. If they can't teach, heal and protect its rich citizen, they will leave. >but it's definitely not a stretch for me to classify them as left. I understand, and i would definatley agree that GL brands itself as left wing. But you shouldn't confuse the marketing for the products. There are very few people in the city counsel without a fat stock portfolio. Amsterdam is a very capitalistic place. If you still dont believe me, try getting an organic juice at one of the far-left hippie bars in Amsterdam Noord for free.

by ralfn 5y ago

mercy_dude 5y ago

I agree using right vs left is dumb on occasions but OP has a point. Liberals (at least in US/Canada) used to be the one who would care about working middle class and their living conditions. In US and Canada all major North American cities(almost all of which I had left leaning politicians) the prices have exploded. You hear for example Canadian prime minister making it election pledge to make housing affordable, when under the same leadership housing prices have gone up 100% over 5yrs in many areas. So there is one of two things happening here - left is now out of touch with what’s really happening with middle class in North America who can’t afford a house without parents help and thus many choose not to start family etc or they cater to house owning rich upper middle class who have increasingly become their base.

ricardobeat 5y ago
It’s quite hard to follow your line of reasoning here. Unless you can explain how “leftist” policies have led to housing inflation, the fact prices have gone up doesn’t seem to contradict your PM pledging to reduce them.
- _v7gu 5y ago
  Expansive immigration+highly regulated housing. Car-dependent city building which forces people who can't afford cars to live in the city. Small apartments and multi-home houses being regulated out of existence which push immigrants into windowless basements.
ralfn 5y ago
> Liberals (at least in US/Canada) used to be the one who would care about working middle class and their living conditions. This confusion is understandable, but liberals never cared about the working middle class. Its just that in the US, the democratic party is a big tent of liberals, socialists and progressives, and the other side is a big tent of evangenicals, libertarians and conservative. The ones that (claim to) care about the working class are the socialists. Liberalism comes from the French revolution, and is exported to the world through Amsterdam (appropiate in this topic!) and its value system is the foundation of modern day capitalism and enterpreneurship by free individuals (no matter how you pray or what you say) in a republic (every vote equal). So standard, you take it for granted. You find the same disconnect between values in the other tent. Libertarians preaching small government for a republic ticket, even though every republican president has ended up spending more money than any president before. One of the big downsides of first-past-the-pole is that a political world simplified to just two sides, doesn't do most people justice. Don't vote for the democrats if you want socialism. Don't vote for the republicans if you want libertarianism. Evangelicals and progressives on the other hand, can do bussiness with the liberals and conservatives, since what they want isn't incompatible. Liberals hear progressives talk about 'inclusion' and they hear 'more customers' (hello, rich gay couples) or 'cheap labour' (hello, poor immigrants) and they get all wet in their stock portfolio. Sidenote: If you ever wonder what America would look like when its just libertarians and socialists having to come together .. its called Burning Man, where autonomous libertarians feed socialist hippies, without liberal transactions or conservative judgment.

toshk 5y ago

GroenLinks has always been the most outspoken against Airbnb. Complaints are probably heaviest in West and not South. But it doesn't matter where, the green left is the most dominant party under upper middle class, together with D66. And indeed I wrote it in a way that complaining people led to the fight against Airbnb but I think there are many more reasons. GroenLinks ideology is definitely not caused by that to be sure. And whether you agree with their policies or not. It's hard to argue against that they at least have made some symbolic political moves, for instance the removal of Iamsterdam because the I was to indivualistic.

ralfn 5y ago
[flagged]
- toshk 5y ago
  Do you always attack people so personal? "Education on me has been wasted" :)? I said GroenLinks was dominant under upper white middle class. Which it is since it's the biggest party in the council at the moment and was by far the most popular in White upper class neighborhoods like west and ijburg last local elections. And is by far, with it's dominant leader, the most dominant voice in the current council; to call them left is not a stretch, it's in their name. D66 likes to join coalitions and then mostly leans in the direction of the dominant party, the house restrictions policy for sure can be described as anti capitalistic since they limit the free use of your capital (,house). For instance needing a permit to live with more then 3 adults in your own house is a new law they passed last year. Or only allowing buyers that will live in the houses. I don't agree or disagree with all policies; but it's definitely not a stretch for me to classify them as left.
  - ralfn 5y ago
    >Do you always attack people so personal? "Education on me has been wasted" :)? I specifically take offence that you were suggesting on a forum like this that Amsterdam is some anti-capitalist stronghold, which is just ridiculous, and if you spread that notion in a place like this, you are doing economic harm to the Netherlands, which i am assuming you are part of. So that would be .. not so smart. >I said GroenLinks was dominant under upper white middle class It's not though. It's dominant under all those students here. Amsterdam is also a student city. Which makes sense, since its a progressive environmentally reactionary party, but their demographics dont really extend beyond 30. >Which it is since it's the biggest party in the council at the moment We don't have a first past the pole system, so 'biggest' doesn't mean anything. No single party has a majority. In terms of ideologies there is a progressive majority, there is a capitalist majority, there is an environmental majority. The previous city election had a lot of VVDers voting for GL because they want to kick the cars out of the center. (which would double the property value of most real estate there) But now compare those results to the results of the general election in Amsterdam, where they are just the 3rd party, after both D66 and the VVD. >And is by far, with it's dominant leader, the most dominant voice in the current council; to call them left is not a stretch, it's in their name. Femke is not dominant at all. She doesn't actually set the policy, she reports to the Hague. Thats how a mayor works in the Netherlands. The central government generally doesn't want to deal with anyone not in the inner circle of national politics. And making her mayor was Rutte trying to buy some votes in the 1st chamber, when his coalition didn't have a majority there any more. She does have the ability to veto in her position, or to give a direct order to the police, and she has used it twice so far. The first time was when the city councel wanted to ban booze on boots in the canals, and she considered it unenforceable and ridiculous. The other was quite recently, when she banned fireworks for this New Years Eve. In both cases, i suspect she did that based on direct feedback by the police deparment. >the house restrictions policy for sure can be described as anti capitalistic since they limit the free use of your capital (,house) The basis of capitalism are: - ability to incorporate (the company itself being a legal entity) - contract law (the words in the contract holier than any human relationship) - state monopoly on violence (enforcing the exact words in the contract) - regulated and well defined ability to own things (esspecially real-estate) If cars weren't regulated, you wouldn't dare buy one. If hotels aren't regulated, tourists wouldn't dare to come. You need the gilds, you need a waag, you need a court and a city hall where all the merchants can use a democratic process to avoid the tragedy of the commons. So, your example. You don't own the land. It's all a lease. A lease of which the terms can change at will, by the true property owner, which is the city of Amsterdam, which is owned by the state. The merchant of Amsterdam democratically decided they prefer less AirBnB, because it means more monies on average. Because tourists are poor, and residents are rich. >Or only allowing buyers that will live in the houses. Again, the city buys what it wants. It wants a high income earner to come live in Amsterdam, and they are much more likely to do that, when they aren't burning their rent. Same thing with social housing. We all need nurses, teachers and police officers. If they can't live here, the city can't hire them. If they can't teach, heal and protect its rich citizen, they will leave. >but it's definitely not a stretch for me to classify them as left. I understand, and i would definatley agree that GL brands itself as left wing. But you shouldn't confuse the marketing for the products. There are very few people in the city counsel without a fat stock portfolio. Amsterdam is a very capitalistic place. If you still dont believe me, try getting an organic juice at one of the far-left hippie bars in Amsterdam Noord for free.