this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2025

1414 points (99.7% liked)

News

37153 readers

1600 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

1414

Europeans recognize Zohran Mamdani’s supposedly radical policies as ‘normal’ (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 5 months ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/news@lemmy.world

168 comments fedilink hide all child comments

After New York City’s race for mayor catapulted Zohran Mamdani from state assembly member into one of the world’s most prominent progressive voices, intense debate swirled over the ideas at the heart of his campaign.

His critics and opponents painted pledges such as free bus service, universal child care and rent freezes as unworkable, unrealistic and exorbitantly expensive.

But some have hit back, highlighting the quirk of geography that underpins some of this view. “He promised things that Europeans take for granted, but Americans are told are impossible,” said Dutch environmentalist and former government advisor Alexander Verbeek in the wake of Tuesday’s election.

Verbeek backed this with a comment he had overheard in an Oslo café, in which Mamdani was described as an American politician who “finally” sounded normal.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Don_alForno@feddit.org 23 points 5 months ago (2 children)

They are not intended to create housing, they are intended to keep those who are already living in the area from being driven out by rising cost of rent.

There are lots of unintended side effects like having to pay bribes to get a contract at all.

That's a consequence of too little availability, not of rent freezes.

Rent freezes are only good for those who already have an affordable housing.

Which should be the top priority before enabling more migration into an overheated housing market.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

overheated housing market

i don't think a market can be "overheated" (except if you're referring to a bubble). what does that even mean?

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

https://iea.org.uk/media/rent-controls-do-far-more-harm-than-good-comprehensive-review-finds/

More migration comes either way, if you control rents or not.

[–] merdaverse@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

You cite neoliberal garbage that has a childish strawman argument against a socialist on its main page. There are plenty of good arguments to make in favor of rent control that are biased the other way, the one that is not subservient to capitalist market forces and interests.

Jacobin has many articles in favor of rent control, written by economists that have looked at the data.

While the Econ 101 view treats its own goals as a trump card, democratic societies — accountable to the public, not only economists — are permitted to weigh these competing policy goals against each other. [...] These include, most obviously, limiting rent increases but also preventing displacement and evictions, slowing the pace of gentrification, and even guaranteeing a right to housing for all.

And here is another one that looks at multiple studies and finds that the negative effect on supply are mixed and marginal at best.

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 months ago

one that is not subservient to capitalist market forces

There's always a market with market forces.

If the legal market is completely state controlled, then the black market is still around. Corruption, bribes, and political connections then become the price to pay to even get a place to live at all.

I grew up in a socialist country with super low rent and the state owning everything. The rent was ridiculously cheap, but the housing quality was terrible. The state didn't pay for upkeep and buildings just rotted. Sure there was also new construction of commie blocks. Good luck getting one of those apartments! Also you couldn't even move to a different city without getting a state permit first. My parents had to bribe the state official with hard currency in addition to changing career, and using political favors to get an actual decent place.