Airbnb is rubbing hands.

That's probably going to end up banned as well, as it was in New York, in order to let people live in the city.

Something inside me tells this won't happen everywhere. Real people with problems to pay rent and buy a house cannot afford (like us) live in the center of a city anymore and wont be in the near future. Mandating 30kph everywhere will make people more and more resistant to live in the cities moving out and leaving the center for the hipsters with their avocado toasts. This is gentrification.

... Hold on, making it _less desirable_ (and thus cheaper) to live in cities would be _gentrification_? How's that work?

(FWIW I don't agree that this does make it less desirable to live in cities; it will tend to reduce noise and improve the efficacy of the bus system, both of which make living in cities _more_, not less, desirable anyway.)

I wouldn't have thought most people living in central Amsterdam have parking, anyway?

His argument is that "everybody" would move out, and that somehow this would push "up" prices?? Possibly it's a complaint that the "wrong sort" of people (younger) would move in?

> Real people with problems to pay rent and buy a house cannot afford (like us) live in the center of a city anymore and wont be in the near future.

People who don't have a car aren't real people?

Airbnb is regulated to hell too.

Maybe you should ask some older eastern Europeans what they think about socialism, before haughtily speaking for everyone who lives in Europe. Socialism and its national variant wrecked Europe in the 20th century. People celebrated when it ended. To call it a rallying cry given that history is quite gross.

You will end being very confused if you do ask.

Socialism didn't wreck eastern Europe. It was notionally full on communism.

This argument is often brought up as “proof” that socialism doesn’t work, yet completely ignores the reality of late-stage capitalism.

Of course boomers love capitalism when in the 60s a factory worker could easily pay off a huge house, two brand new cars every 3 years, and support a family of 5 on a single income.

But that isn’t capitalism today. Young people are working themselves into the ground just to share a room in a house with 6 other people, barely able to put food on the table.

What do you suppose the current generation will say about capitalism when they get old?

Wealth is flowing from poor people to rich people at an ever increasing rate. It’s no wonder alternative economic systems are gaining in popularity.

>Of course boomers love capitalism when in the 60s a factory worker could easily pay off a huge house, two brand new cars every 3 years, and support a family of 5 on a single income.

Guess what, the same generation born in ussr (mostly urban and either russian or conformist enough to benefit from the system) liked the system too, while it worked. Hell, who would not like state-provided housing, public transport childcare and all the nice things, while they last, even if the system as whole isn't sustainble enough.

I’m old enough to remember when people called what you’re referring to “communism”, similar to how one might call the Democratic People's Republic of Korea “democratic”.

It seems that now, based on your comment, it’s in vogue to call it socialism.

At this rate, in a few years it’ll be called democratic socialism and not long after it’ll be called social democracy.

I guess you gotta keep that Overton window moving.

As an aside, what is often overlooked when someone brings up the point you do, is that communist nostalgia[0] is a real thing.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_nostalgia

I mean, arguments about the difference between the two are interesting in an academic sort of way if you're into Marxist theory, but the USSR called itself a union of socialist states. North Korea's constitution says it's a socialist state. Etc. They are very clear on this point. They are socialists, these are countries run by scholars of Marx and that's the term they use.

You can get into endless arguments about how they are No True Socialists but it just ends up being like a word game.

That's why the European parties that lean in that direction tend to cast themselves as "social democratic", a different term.

> I mean, arguments about the difference between the two are interesting in an academic sort of way if you're into Marxist theory, but the USSR called itself a union of socialist states. North Korea's constitution says it's a socialist state. Etc. They are very clear on this point. They are socialists, these are countries run by scholars of Marx and that's the term they use.

You’re just continuing on the path of self-identification. Would you call North Korea democratic just because that’s what they call themselves?

If not, then why not when you seem to have no qualms calling them socialist because on the basis that they call themselves that in their constitution?

> You can get into endless arguments about how they are No True Socialists but it just ends up being like a word game.

You paint it as some sort of semantics game, meanwhile both socialism and communism are well defined.

Notwithstanding the different flavors, they all have certain elements in common as a fundamental requirement and no amount of trying to fit the Soviet shaped peg into a round hole changes that.

> That's why the European parties that lean in that direction tend to cast themselves as "social democratic", a different term

I understand that you use the word “tend” to hedge your bets, but your comment here implies a certain amount of ubiquity and lack of parties trying to distance themselves.

The reality is that that Europe has a slew of socialist parties that aren’t hiding it either, they’re often called “Socialist Party” in their respective language. Hell there are even some communist parties.

And it’s not like they don’t occupy any seats in the respective parliaments either. Most of these parties have significant presence in parliaments and at other levels.