Airbnb removes 80% of advertisements in Amsterdam after registration obligation

The way it works is, you think I'll just Uber/Lyft to meet my friends. So you order one say 20 minutes before you're supposed to meet only to find an extremely high price. You pay it so you're not late but then you also vow to plan ahead so you never have to take it again. I haven't taken one since I was burned in June. Another friend got burned last month and I'd guess he's likely to not take another either.

I think that's kind of my whole point, to some degree. In the Age of the Internet, the world is more connected than it has ever been before, which means the path is less beaten by roadways than it is by wires and signals from wireless towers. If a place has any form of reasonable Internet connectivity, it's probably not really that far "off the beaten path", but that's also essential as a basis for any reasonable accommodation. So, no, I'm not visiting remote tribes in the Amazonian jungle, but I also wouldn't for many reasons including ethical considerations. Visiting a rural village in the countryside of a country not known for tourism, but that nevertheless has broadband Internet, is not as far off the beaten path, but it is still outside the awareness of typical tourists.

The world being more connected is generally a good thing, and I'd say a net good, but it's not all roses and cherries, and in fact there are many negative externalities to this connectivity as well. AirBnB provides people a way to arbitrage those externalities, but it's not wholly evil either, it also has positive attributes that can benefit both parties.

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.