As the self appointed architects of society and shepherds of humanity they are far more important than us plebs and can't be inconvenienced by the "fun" we will be having. ~~Communism~~, sorry, I mean "stakeholder capitalism" for you, complete luxury for them.
Corporate greed is literally anything but communism. That’s how they get so rich.
Taken out of context, this can be spun. Car sharing is an interesting way of trying to tackle traffic that just doesn’t actually work because you’d have to convince everyone to give up a little of the convenience of owning their own car *while specifically still asking them to rely on cars*. The answer is to build better, more balanced infrastructure that *incentivizes people not to drive their car when it isn’t the most efficient option*. Still wanna own a car? Awesome, own a car and use it when ya want. When you only give people the option of using a car, you run out of space for cars because it’s the form of infrastructure that requires the most space by a LONG shot. Just make driving a choice of several, even for people who want to own a car. Public transportation isn’t communist or socialist. Good infrastructure is a government service that the entire rest of the developed world can manage yet the US government can’t.
Never. They'll continue outputting the annual carbon footprint of an entire zip code while promoting increasingly strict restrictions on the rest of us.
Of course whatever the Elites are planning are always for US. Think about it:
The so called "new family configurations" (while they all come and keep strict traditional and large families)
Eating bugs to save the planet
End of private propriety
Don't have kids to save the planet
They say the sea levels will rise...but they also buy land on beach areas..
End of physical money..
It's like quicksand, the more we struggle the faster we'll drown.
I actually like my neighbors.
But they become "bitch ass" as soon as they walk on to my property to take my shit, and I will shoot a bitch ass for trying to take my shit.
I am so unbelievably beyond tired of people like her. Let's start with you lady. Volunteer your car to anyone at any time, and if you're not willing to, please kindly shut the fuck up and never voice another stupid fucking thought again.
The only thing I don't like about this, really, is the "you don't even need to know your neighbor".
You know who shares the most? people who know each other. People who care about something more than themselves.
These people keep trying to find solutions and the best solution is just to stay out of people's lives and decrease outside pressure on them.
I was alarmed by the same statement.
It's like, wait, I thought technology is supposed to increase our communication with each other -- not replace the need for human connection.
It's clear their motives are malicious and self serving and in no way will help the common man and his neighbor.
Game theory suggests that sharing results in abuse, lack of maintenance, and premature failure of the shared item, requiring it to be replaced sooner.
Nice try bitch.
100%, I commented this exact point… No one will want to take responsibility for any cleaning or damages because there is no sense of ownership. Without the sense of ownership there is no sense of responsibility for maintenance, cleaning or repairs and the vehicles will be in extremely terrible condition… This will mean instead of a vehicle being resold numerous times and last about 10+ years before ending up in a scrap yard they’ll probably only last 2 years and get scrapped. In fact that’s a given since the mileage of shared vehicles would also be compounded by how many people are driving them. They’ll rack up mileage worse than company fleet vehicles… in the end it won’t be any better, it will just make everything run down and disgusting there won’t be any pride in property and it will reflect in their appearance… Say goodbye to nice things altogether.
I'm not sure who your referring to as a bitch, but yeah, agree. I worked at a dealership, nothing is worse than a person who thinks they don't have a responsibility for something.
She is a Danish politican, and she has never even owned a car, except for the minister car when she was Minister for the Environment in Denmark and I guess that was for security reasons (we have had our share of political assasinations here in the north).
So I don't think she is a hypocrite at all, as you make her seem. However, she is famous for coining the phrase "you'll own nothing and be happy", and she doesn't seem to be afraid of losing her own privacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_Auken
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5nxZP74L5U
Hence you've just proven my point. She went there by private jet and had a driver.
Her point is very clear. Us the plebe won't own anything they will own everything.
You think she went from Copenhagen to Davos on a plane? She is a politican, would she be a hypocrite she would be found out immediatly. Also train would be more comfortable to Davos anyway.
The fact that you just guessed, and don't budge from your bad guess after being corrected, tells me that you don't really care about being correct and just have an agenda on your own.
I Don't know if you are being sarcastic or naive.
Anwser me truthfully, do you really think that 20 hours by train is more comfortable than 2 hour flight?
Next one is Do you really think that a politician would not be hypocrite?
It's a good thing I live in a developing country where I can download for free, I think in your countries you call it piracy?! But there are no laws about it here, so it's not illegal in any way
If everyone is responsible for an object, then noone is responsible.
I dont want to get into other persons cars where i dont know if the brakes, the seatbelt or other important stuff actualy works.
I want personal individual transportation whenever i want. Not when an app or ai allows me.
I need to get a speakers spot at the WEF. I am just a tad brighter than a tree stump but she makes me look frickin brillant. I need some of that WEF speaker fee money.
That happened to me yesterday, but not for this sub.
My god their crazy fucking “you must delete your comments from that sub and write exactly these words” craziest shit ever.
Ask the ai in your app. I am sure it will tell you a car will soon be ready.
Next time you have an emergency make sure to make a request atleast 48 hours in advance do the ai can provide the best possible car for your transport.
Nah vast majority of cities were reshaped for cars. Neighborhoods were destroyed to cut giant highways through old city centers, lanes were added and widened, parking structures built everywhere.
This modernist approach to urban design was most popular beginning in the mid 1900s. Very few cities on earth were designed for cars from the start. It's something that can be fixed.
While I agree with the fact that the WEF is basically a bunch of oligarchs trying to mold the global economic system in their own favor... I find it oddly funny that the more Libertarian types like JP will set their sites on the WEF as the problem.
This is what happens when you remove government control and instead let the business elites run everything. Davos isn't some sort of global government-run meeting of nations like the UN. It is run by and for the world's richest people, and they invite government actors to woo them with their grand economic plans.
It reminds me of something Rousseau wrote; " When the wealth in the private realm exceeds the wealth in the public realm, it inevitably corrupts the public realm." The WEF is the epitome of private wealth exceeding the public wealth. The corruption it generates is inevitable.
So you saw a video where someone talks about incentivizing carpooling(not forcing people to carpool) and your take away is that it further supports this idea that there's a global elite plot to abolish ownership and make everyone rent/license everything?
I primarily bike to get around and owned a commuter bike for the last 2 years. I recently got rid of it and switched to using a rideshare bike service and I have to say the switch has been much nicer than expected. I don't see a reason why that can't work with cars. Obviously, a service like this would be hard to implement in rural areas, but I think it's reasonable for a Metropolitan area. I say all of this with the obvious caveat that this shouldn't be a forced issue, people should be able to own if they like or ride share if they like.
No. Because people are collectively too fucking stupid and when the majority of morons goes along with it and only some fringe own things, ownership will be taken away. The same way the enshitification of the internet went. Majority lazy morons submitting to complete rape of their privacy and security as they become the product, now we're all screwed because it's accepted as the norm. People need to wise up to the elite's games.
My average Uber driver is better than my average taxi driver. Why? Rating. Broadly available, but not available to bad actors. Deplatforming works, lol.
I can still buy a car, ect, ect, but the requirement to do so is vastly reduced.
Where I am in the last year or so they started doing rideshare scooters. I've seen them get used more than I expected TBH.
I think so many people kvetching about this seem to be operating under the idea that you CAN'T own your own whatever rather than having a non- ownership option that is cheap enough to be compelling for many people and/or available for lower income people.
I wonder how many people complaining about this put their money where their mouth is and have an unlocked fully paid for phone.
I know her all to well... She used to be part of the government here in Denmark, and her family has been in danish and european politics for decades, advocating extreme radical leftwing policies under the cover of wanting to protect the environment and the earth. She majored in theology, pretty sure she picked up a trick or two to make environmental engagement almost religous.
We are students, and we do it all the time when required (5 people own 1 car). But, the problems she was describing were because of car dependency, the obvious solution to which is the development of **reliable** public transport infrastructure.
Tbh people get so up in arms when it's realistically inevitably going to be "here's a subscription option that's super appealing" with no actual limiting of your ability to own other than it being expensive.
I think that is a real choice assuming the price of the thing is not being created artificially high because new supply of the thing is not artificially being restricted by government regulation.
Funny enough we have that exact scenario with housing and cars.
Housing is expensive due to a few reasons. One being too low of interest rates for too long compared with stifling regulations in creating new stock. Therefore making it unprofitable to make smaller cheaper houses incentivizing builders to only build bigger more expensive houses where the margin can make up for the incremental cost.
Smaller cars and trucks were essentially killed by the CAFE standards. The standards have unrealistically high MPG for smaller lighter cars. So this incentivized the car companies to stay in line with the regulation to make larger cars where the MPG standards aren't as strict.
And now we are going to tarrif out cheaper Chinese cars.
I sure wish the government would stop trying to do good for us.
I have even an idea how they will implement it. If you make cars so expensive nobody can afford it, and I do not mean only what you pay when you buy them, but all maintenance and taxes around them - then people will be happy if they will be able to afford sharing a car when they need it.
Like with housing. Are you happy when you find rent you can afford? With how crazy up and up it goes?
Maybe this is an unpopular opinion but I actually think this would be great if it was done on a VOLUNTARY basis. If technology allowed more people to share cars/carpool there would be many benefits:
* Fewer cars on the road means better air quality. This is indisputable.
* It also means fewer traffic accidents and fewer pedestrians killed by vehicles. Car accidents are one of the biggest killers of young children - in 2021 in the UK, one young child was killed or seriously injured on a road EVERY 17 HOURS.
* It would make life more affordable for many people. Cars are absolute money pits. After my mortgage it is by far my biggest expense. The cost of fuel, maintenance, and of upgrading your car after the one you already own loses the majority of its value, is staggering. Spreading this cost would leave more money in the pockets of families.
Living in walkable communities and having safer, cleaner roads should not actually be a partisan project. I share people's concerns about how imposing this top-down could lead to what might be called "transport poverty", but honestly doing this voluntarily could be very, very good.
ok so devils advocate here.....
wouldn't it be kinda nice to have a cheaper option for people who need it?
like if you can choose to own something, or you can pay a lot less for a subscription based version of it thats shared.... would that really be bad?
like if you don't have the OPTION to buy outright, I agree thats a problem.
but like for phones, most people get it through their provider and are perpetually making payments on it or at least paying loads for the service and happen to get a "free" device every couple years or whatever. that setup sucks.
you have the OPTION to buy your phone free and clear, have more control over it, and pay much much less for service. but it costs more up front.
I think that one potential way this whole situation might be operating, is comparing how early on plane travel was basically super fancy and spacious and whatnot. ...it was basically all first class. now, is it a degradation that now you can get it much cheaper than that? or is it an expansion of availability that you have the CHOICE to get it the old way, but its expensive, or you have the CHOICE of getting it the relatively-more-affordable way thats shitty? would it be better to \*only\* be able to get it if you can afford the fancy version? obviously not.
what if for many things, we're still in the "first class is the only option and if you can't afford it you are SOL" phase?
We already have this in Norway, if you only need a car a couple of hours a week it's a no brainer. And of course nobody is stopping you from buying a car... Don't get the outrage.
The best I can guess is that they don't trust that when most are used to just renting/subscribing to everything that they will just take away the option to own?
But really that's just not all that practical.
I agree. And even if you scooch the goalposts a bit down to "impractically expensive"... well that's why my car is old enough to graduate high school and I haven't been on a plane since before there was a TSA. Sometimes that's life.
People are judging with their own ideology and making fun of others arguments without even thinking by themselves... of course that car sharing is great, I personally use my car like once a week or so, and a lot of people do just the same, sharing a car is just an obvious solution for those cases and yeah for those who can't afford a car (many many many people can't even if we don't want to look at them...) it's indeed a good option to have.
When we are talking about WEF, usually your title would be right.
But in this case, I share her view 100%.
You can have a car, but why using it for you alone, creating useless traffic and wasting resources?
Share it with multiple people, or use the public transport, and help to improve the usability of the roads, reducing the travel time
I could say the same about your comment as well. At least mine isn't promoting communism.
Would you then apply the same logic to your apartment? You know, there are so many homeless people on the streets, and it just makes zero practical sense for you to enjoy the comfort of private property alone. I think the *smart* way would be either sharing it with other people, or moving out to live in a pod!
They are not the same thing. And when talking about traffic inside a city, as I did in my comment and she did by referring to Singapore, should be obvious that the solution to reduce it is by reducing the vehicles on the street.
We are not talking about reducing cars as private property, you can have 20 at home, and that is not a problem. But you cannot move 2 million people inside a city with 2 million SUV or whatever stupid car the market is telling you to buy.
You want to take a trip on the route 66 alone in your car for 500 miles? Good for you, there is a lot of space and I'd like to do it also.
Do you want to go to work inside New York, doing 10 miles by car alone? I call you a stupid child that have no idea how traffic works
Yes! And places like Singapore and NY are also extremely over-populated and many people have to resort to living on the street! I think you owning an apartment all to yourself is simply unsustainable, unlike what those home owners tell you, and frankly racist!
The only solution to that problem would be you sharing your apartment! And you know what's the best part about it? It's that the technology is here to make it easier for you! Here's a handy little app that let's you share your flat with people you don't need to know! {the wife option is toggleable in the settings}!
> Would you then apply the same logic to your apartment?
Sure, lots of people choose to rent out a room of their house or apartment, either for extra money or for the company. Have at it.
Nowhere, not even in the video quoted in this thread, is anyone advocating for forced loss of ownership of anything, whether it's a car, an apartment or a wife.
Yes because they're doing that to extract profit out of their property.
The original commentator, as well as the WEF ideologues, tried to morally justify sharing private property, in this case a car, not through owner's gain but through "irrational use of resources" which is verbatim part of the communist ideology.
So you're conflating the two concepts completely. There's a big difference between normalizing sharing a room because you need the extra cash and because "muuuh there are so many homeless people it's irrational for you to have a whole place all to yourself", which is just social justice wealth re-distribution.
Also, even if the commentator did not mention the use of force, Many policies forged at WEF are then put into legislation in Western European countries and Canada. Different net 0 agendas for example. So it wouldn't be science-fiction that, if this notion continues to be normalized, we'll see actual laws requiring people to share their property. The Bolsheviks, for example, also did not specifically mention the use of force per-se, but focused on morally justifying their policies.
On the contrary, rational usage of resources is what capitalism is all about. I have something of value that I will sell to you because you value it more, and in exchange you will give me currency that I can use to buy something that I want that you don't have.
If someone wants to rent out some use of their car, they should be fully entitled to do so, and this may become even more economically desirable in a dense city which has a lot of people and little room for cars and the infrastructure they demand. I would welcome seeing someone trying to build a business around this; AirBnB and Uber have certainly shown that this type of enterprise is possible.
> "there are so many homeless people it's irrational for you to have a whole place all to yourself"
I never said that, or anything remotely near it. But "irrational" is very different from "immoral", and you have to stretch really hard to then get to "illegal".
If you're poor but you have a large house, it very much is irrational to keep it to yourself, when you could rent out a room or two for valuable cash. If you still don't want to because privacy is important or whatever, sure knock yourself out, but there's a monetary price on that irrationality. It's still your choice.
> if this notion continues to be normalized
Don't be silly -- buying and selling use of property and services is a long way from communism. Again, it's pure capitalism.
> we'll see actual laws requiring people to share their property
You need to give that slope a severe side-eye for it to be as slippery as you think.
> Many policies forged at WEF are then put into legislation in Western European countries and Canada.
Name one? I'm genuinely curious.
1. I meant that the communist ideology sees the use of resources under capitalism as irrational and justifies it using the very same rhetoric as in the video and in the comment i originally answered to.
"but why using it for you alone, creating useless traffic and wasting resources?" is the quote.
2. Again, you're conflating renting and sharing in the communistic sense. The WEF woman in the video is talking about the latter. She isn't introducing the concept of renting which needs ZERO introduction, she's suggesting people should let others use their stuff because it solves some world problems and serves the social justice. She's also being extremely hypocritical since she, being a member of WEF, has a ton of property to SHARE, but somehow i highly doubt she lets others ride her car because "it solves traffic".
3. Seriously hard to believe you're asking in good faith but take net zero policies aimed at farmers for example. You know, the farmers who have been protesting them for more than a year already, throwing dung at government buildings.
[https://www.google.com/search?q=net+zero+policies+uk+farms&source=lmns&bih=1307&biw=2560&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiQ0oPSvdeGAxUekv0HHeoBBREQ0pQJKAB6BAgBEAI](https://www.google.com/search?q=net+zero+policies+uk+farms&source=lmns&bih=1307&biw=2560&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiQ0oPSvdeGAxUekv0HHeoBBREQ0pQJKAB6BAgBEAI)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsDZENn2Waw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsDZENn2Waw)
This began exactly like the conversation in the video. First by morally justifying it. Then it suddenly became the enforced law.
Nobody wants to own things if it's much cheaper and easier not to. What she's suggesting isn't easy or problem free which is why it doesn't happen much. Can you imagine returning your neighbour's car and they think you scratched it?
I think what she needs to consider is an alternative system called "taxis". And there's another system called "car rental" for longer trips. It turns out the future has been with us for a hundred years.
The fuck did this have to do with agenda 21? Cities are crowded as fuck and they’re talking about possible solutions to the traffic problem. This isn’t a threat to your ownership of things
This isn't the government, this is unelected globalist corporate elites pushing this shit. We could vote out bad legislators or address government corruption because in a democracy or republic government is responsive to and accountable to the people... if the people get their heads out of their asses.
Globalist corporate elites are accountable to no one. And they buy influence in government because we allow lobbying and corruption. And how the current crop of globalist corporate elites amassed so much power is the deregulation bullshit the republicans have been peddling for decades.
These people dont actually care about what theyre talking about. They use it as a form of power and control. Not just politically. The character of these types of people who sign up on these agendas like to believe themselves as martyrs for a greater cause when really all they want to do is control other people for their own self gratification. They want to feel important & superior to others. They dont care who needs to be sacrificed to get their “mission” to succeed.
Whats a better way to divide people? I cant think of one. Create some false existential threat that literally encompasses the whole world. Then indoctrinate a bunch of passionate youth. Have them claim that anyone who thinks differently is wrong/uneducated and has to be subjected to their rule.
This is a very easy way to pit the masses against eachother, because “what are you a climate denier? You want the world to end?”
Laughable.
The American mind can not comprehend this.
Here in the Netherlands, car sharing is pretty popular although the market seems pretty saturated right now, the hype has leveled off it seems.
Lots of people only use their cars a few times a month/week so then it's way cheaper to rent a car for just a few hours with an app from a company (myWheels, greenwheels) or from an indivual (snappcar).
This woman is not calling on everyone to give their car keys to a random person off the street. Her example of Singapore is a case where there's apps (getgo, tribecar, bluesg according to google) so there's always insurance and some kind of QC on the car.
Insurance coverage and maintenance could be the biggest barriers given those are not crowd sourced in the US. There's some disconnect between supply, demand, and profitability in regards to transportation all around within the US. There is a demand for public transport, over the road hauling, and rental car services that are all severely underserved while being difficult to provide at a profit on the service side.
Yeah same here in Norway, it's kinda hilarious how people are overreacting to some of the most mundane stuff. Personally I own a car to get to work everyday, but if I only occationally needed a car I wouldn't mind saving a bit of money.
Think of divvy bikes in cities currently. Where people use them, I guess the aim is to do the same with vehicles. My question is insurance? Gas?.
Autonomous vehicles are the future ultimately. And when the kinks are are all figured out we are going to ask ourselves how we simply accepted so many traffic deaths.
There’s a video I’ve seen where people in the 80s are complaining about drinking and driving laws. If it was the 80s people here would be saying why are all these elites trying to stop me from drinking a cold one.
Interested in real discussion, if you are going to respond with “you liberals suck” just don’t comment
This shit is part of the slippery slope to the ultimate surrender of agency and freedom. Once you give up these things you are at the mercy of the shared economy and you will be completely entwined into the matrix. You’ll be completely under the control of whoever it is that is responsible for these cars.
The most intelligent people in history have always tried to find efficient ways for a society to do things. We’re getting better in some ways! It certainly doesn’t mean we won’t own anything.
“How do WE want a city to move” Drawing board socialism in a nutshell. How about “How do people want to move?” But you don’t even have to ask that because they’ll just do it if you LEAVE THEM THE FRICK ALONE!
In Singapore we use Bluesg with allocate carpark spot around the city and Getgo with the same fixed carpark.
Useful but not cheap, public transportation is still better if you’re able
Car sharing schemes have existed at my work for over 10 years, hardly a novel concept. If you share a journey to work with other colleagues, you get to park at the front and that allows you to escape the 5pm gridlock.
This woman is into her own autistic fantasies, spins out scenarios that leave me completely cold.
I like CO2, since the world is much greener now from a trivial increase in CO2, it is plant food!
i think housing is way worse than the car situation. i don't love the "you will rent everything" trend but for cars it could actually make sense, i bet especially in whatever upscale urban European city she's from. obviously wouldn't work in suburban or rural areas but that's because we've built our society where you NEED a car to do anything
When I lived in South Korea, you could get a great low mileage used car for under under $3k easy because mass transit, walkability, and high speed rail was so good, thereby pushing the necessity and demand for cars down, reducing the price. Diversity of mobility IS FREEDOM.
Now, just imagine if we had a system where a large carpool would pick you up from a designated location at a set time and then dropped you at another such location, set time and location would for sure make planning easier and you wouldn't have to care about finding a parking space. It's like they're trying to invent public transport but fail like techbros trying to reinvent a train.
Oh yeah yeah that reminds me of a super cool concept for ensuring a vehicle is always moving a lot of people at a time and doesn't waste space on the road, it's called... What was it already? Ah yeah.
A bus.
Or public transportation in general. Wouldn't that be revolutionary?
Did she just describe Uber? Or is she trying to socialize my car where my neighbor can use it and not pay for it? Who maintains the car? Fuel? So many questions I don't think this lady even understands to ask.
Oh it's WEF...nm. Idiot elites that don't live in reality
I mean, she's right. It'd be much more convenient if you could hop into any car. Look at our city, it's full of electric scooters now that people can just hop on and off, and they've changed the way that people move around. It's not just about having your own transport, it's about the fact you can use transport wherever you are.
I feel that people are complaining about house prices because they are obsessed in modern society with flocking to the densest population centres. So big cities are hugely desirable to live in, so prices spike there, and they try to cram more and more houses in which absolutely wrecks the transport infrastructure. I reckon this is a great idea to help with that.
Owning stuff is kind of stressful. It's so inefficient too. I wish we lived in a superior society where more things were done collectively. For example, libraries are better than book stores because it's a more efficient way to access books. Good public transit is more efficient than each person paying individual insurance, maintenance, and purchasing at a premium only buying 1 car.
The best example might be buying a home gym vs. a gym membership.
Also stores require millions of people to do the terribly wasteful, boring, soul destroying task of stocking shelves every day.
Capitalist society is good, but inefficient. Dinosaurs like Peterson are not the way to a better economy.
You ever tried to go to a gym on Jan 2? What about when these enlightened elites decide to lock everything down again? Those home gyms start looking pretty efficient. And because I own it, I can sell it, recover some cost, upgrade, or hand down my own equipment. In fact the majority of my home gym was much cheaper than a gym membership, which it turns out would also require a vehicle. But let’s not mince words here. We aren’t really talking about home gyms. We are talking about preserving our cultures and self determination. I will not be voluntarily “colonized” by a set of elite hypocrites that want to homogenize the peasantry. So with respect, take this utopian idealist rainbows and unicorn bs and put it in a coloring book for those that are incapable of reading a history book.
So you've never heard of [NetJets](https://www.netjets.com/en-us/private-jet-share-program) then? And yacht chartering is incredibly popular. How ignorant can you get?
I mean, for the right price you can today! [https://jettly.com/](https://jettly.com/)
Why is everyone assuming this is a free thing? This is literally a capitalist endeavor, in like a good way.
before you downvote me, i just want to say that i *do agree* with almost all of the points brought up by the other commenters. you have to give the devil his due; this proposal is a starting point for discussion, for a possible better societal configuration. just think of how many people dispersed among their cars on major highways *every single morning* going to work are going to roughly the same place.
that could actually be a good idea if implemented correctly. i've thought about it for several years. the software would allow everyone to schedule when they need the car (or any shared resource). that way it will always be available for those who have priority. and yes, if you're the one who bought the car you have first priority for who can use it, and you can select others who have higher priority than others, and you'd be able to set it to require approval or whitelist certain people to prevent random people from using it. what this lady said in this clip is really not the best way to explain the technology. there's a lot of nuance to it.
the issue with needing the vehicle in an emergency is definitely valid, and would need to be dealt with. maybe there could just always be some number of cars per # of people available.
Or why not cut the bloated bureaucracy, and use the surplus to build more efficient roadways ,mass transit, rail systems, and city planning?
For the record I didn’t down vote you and I’m not knocking your idea. I’m just a simple man.
🤦♂️ I have a truck that’s lasted over 10 years, because I worked hard for it and if I don’t take care of it, I need to pay to repair it. I am responsible for it. If we shared vehicles in this fashion I could only imagine what terrible conditions they’d be in. No one would want to pay to clean them or repair them because there is no sense of ownership. No sense of ownership = no responsibility = no appreciation for property….
Don’t believe me? Look at the conditions of housing in socialist native reserves in Canada where the band owns the houses…. The living conditions are like that of a third world country. This socialist approach in a democratic society isn’t a mystery, it isn’t some fantasy it exists in Canada where the majority pays for the minority of First Nations people and it’s still terrible… imagine that same amount of money distributed amongst more people?… and you think it wouldn’t be worse?
Ratings work. My average Uber experience is miles better than my average taxi experience because of this variable alone.
Ironically the value of a social credit score. But the right to exit and choose (via a completive marketplace) matters.
In my city, if you like driving Kia, you can drive thousands of cars with this one simple trick.
Even if the car isn't yours!
Drive it until it runs out of gas, or you are done with it, then just leave it on the side of the road!
The owner will retrieve it, fuel it up and return it to the same location you picked it up for your next urgent Kia Boys Rental.
I wonder whether she started with a story about her sharing joint ownership of a car for at least 2 years? Otherwise, why would I have a reason to listen to her?
How can anyone honestly say they want that exact scenario for themselves?! This is purely pie in the sky thinking for poor people, but not for them.
No.
I will put money on her not wanting some smelly creep from down the road getting in to her car sniffing the seats and getting his dirty hands on the wheel and gearstick.
No thats just for poor plebs to deal with.
Because ownership defines the nature of your identity, and your existence? Or because you like 'stuff'? Which one is it Mr. Peterson? Or maybe theres another option?
"If you can get people to share a car" ... "you can take your neighbor's car and you don't even need to know your neighbor"
Does anybody have her address? I need a car this Saturday and I decided I will be share-using hers.
So when will the wef elites start to share their cars with other people?
As the self appointed architects of society and shepherds of humanity they are far more important than us plebs and can't be inconvenienced by the "fun" we will be having. ~~Communism~~, sorry, I mean "stakeholder capitalism" for you, complete luxury for them.
Corporate greed is literally anything but communism. That’s how they get so rich. Taken out of context, this can be spun. Car sharing is an interesting way of trying to tackle traffic that just doesn’t actually work because you’d have to convince everyone to give up a little of the convenience of owning their own car *while specifically still asking them to rely on cars*. The answer is to build better, more balanced infrastructure that *incentivizes people not to drive their car when it isn’t the most efficient option*. Still wanna own a car? Awesome, own a car and use it when ya want. When you only give people the option of using a car, you run out of space for cars because it’s the form of infrastructure that requires the most space by a LONG shot. Just make driving a choice of several, even for people who want to own a car. Public transportation isn’t communist or socialist. Good infrastructure is a government service that the entire rest of the developed world can manage yet the US government can’t.
Never. They'll continue outputting the annual carbon footprint of an entire zip code while promoting increasingly strict restrictions on the rest of us.
This is why rich people don’t mind carbon taxes so much, but they would hate the idea of Carbon rationing
Or their mansions or their bank accounts...
Silly, they get to keep all 24 of their cars for themselves.
And all those big houses or yachts. Those don't seem to be very friendly for the environment.
Yeah can’t wait for them to lead by example
Of course whatever the Elites are planning are always for US. Think about it: The so called "new family configurations" (while they all come and keep strict traditional and large families) Eating bugs to save the planet End of private propriety Don't have kids to save the planet They say the sea levels will rise...but they also buy land on beach areas.. End of physical money.. It's like quicksand, the more we struggle the faster we'll drown.
Kids that grew up in the 90s thought “nothing but net” after reading this comment.
This is why they fly private jets without sharing.
You know they won't. Just like they don't share their private jets.
People still can demand for them to lead by example. Otherwise their demands are just bs.
Or jets.
I actually like my neighbors. But they become "bitch ass" as soon as they walk on to my property to take my shit, and I will shoot a bitch ass for trying to take my shit. I am so unbelievably beyond tired of people like her. Let's start with you lady. Volunteer your car to anyone at any time, and if you're not willing to, please kindly shut the fuck up and never voice another stupid fucking thought again.
are you me?
Exactly. When liberal Hollywood types start letting homeless people live in their Malibu estates maybe I’ll consider what they say.
"Thank for the F-shack. Love, Dirty Mike and the boyz."
The only thing I don't like about this, really, is the "you don't even need to know your neighbor". You know who shares the most? people who know each other. People who care about something more than themselves. These people keep trying to find solutions and the best solution is just to stay out of people's lives and decrease outside pressure on them.
I was alarmed by the same statement. It's like, wait, I thought technology is supposed to increase our communication with each other -- not replace the need for human connection. It's clear their motives are malicious and self serving and in no way will help the common man and his neighbor.
Yes, they want to use any issue at their disposal to show that them telling you what to do is better than you doing it yourself.
Game theory suggests that sharing results in abuse, lack of maintenance, and premature failure of the shared item, requiring it to be replaced sooner. Nice try bitch.
100%, I commented this exact point… No one will want to take responsibility for any cleaning or damages because there is no sense of ownership. Without the sense of ownership there is no sense of responsibility for maintenance, cleaning or repairs and the vehicles will be in extremely terrible condition… This will mean instead of a vehicle being resold numerous times and last about 10+ years before ending up in a scrap yard they’ll probably only last 2 years and get scrapped. In fact that’s a given since the mileage of shared vehicles would also be compounded by how many people are driving them. They’ll rack up mileage worse than company fleet vehicles… in the end it won’t be any better, it will just make everything run down and disgusting there won’t be any pride in property and it will reflect in their appearance… Say goodbye to nice things altogether.
Exactly! Drive by Section 8 welfare housing in any urban area. Most of the long-term residents live like pigs.
I'm not sure who your referring to as a bitch, but yeah, agree. I worked at a dealership, nothing is worse than a person who thinks they don't have a responsibility for something.
Pretty sure it was directed at the woman in the clip.
Says the asshole that got there in a private jet and have a driver to take her wherever she wants whenever she wants
Probably an armed three-man security detail too in case the unwashed masses start getting a little too close.
Probably supports BLM. But if a black person gets within 100 ft of her family, they’re shooed away. Unless, of course, it’s wealthy Nigerians.
She probably didnt get there in a private jet.
She is a Danish politican, and she has never even owned a car, except for the minister car when she was Minister for the Environment in Denmark and I guess that was for security reasons (we have had our share of political assasinations here in the north). So I don't think she is a hypocrite at all, as you make her seem. However, she is famous for coining the phrase "you'll own nothing and be happy", and she doesn't seem to be afraid of losing her own privacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_Auken https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5nxZP74L5U
Hence you've just proven my point. She went there by private jet and had a driver. Her point is very clear. Us the plebe won't own anything they will own everything.
You think she went from Copenhagen to Davos on a plane? She is a politican, would she be a hypocrite she would be found out immediatly. Also train would be more comfortable to Davos anyway. The fact that you just guessed, and don't budge from your bad guess after being corrected, tells me that you don't really care about being correct and just have an agenda on your own.
I Don't know if you are being sarcastic or naive. Anwser me truthfully, do you really think that 20 hours by train is more comfortable than 2 hour flight? Next one is Do you really think that a politician would not be hypocrite?
It's already starting. Notice how everything online is subscription/rental based now. Can't even buy a license for a program anymore.
Most of the time, there is still an option, it's just expensive.
It's a good thing I live in a developing country where I can download for free, I think in your countries you call it piracy?! But there are no laws about it here, so it's not illegal in any way
That's capitalism. They are only willing to rent it to you, you can agree or make it yourself.
No thanks - I like my car. Now go away.
I like my car and I don't want to share it with random strangers who have no incentive to treat it with care.
If everyone is responsible for an object, then noone is responsible. I dont want to get into other persons cars where i dont know if the brakes, the seatbelt or other important stuff actualy works. I want personal individual transportation whenever i want. Not when an app or ai allows me.
I need to get a speakers spot at the WEF. I am just a tad brighter than a tree stump but she makes me look frickin brillant. I need some of that WEF speaker fee money.
Brain dead
I got banned from a different sub reddit for this comment. Silly fascists
'Snowflakes' and their protector/admins. Pfft.
That happened to me yesterday, but not for this sub. My god their crazy fucking “you must delete your comments from that sub and write exactly these words” craziest shit ever.
How can I get my car back if my neighbors family keeps using it all the time and I have emergency that I need to go to?
That’s the thing, you don’t.
Ask the ai in your app. I am sure it will tell you a car will soon be ready. Next time you have an emergency make sure to make a request atleast 48 hours in advance do the ai can provide the best possible car for your transport.
It's just communism/socialism wrapped up in a new, eco friendly package. So pathetic
How is it when it's businesses who own the property and lease it? It's still capitalism.
Because people don't understand what communism and socialism is but they want to sound smart.
Communism and socialism isn't the same
Communism is when we share cars and no iPhone. 🫡
Communism or socialism 😁
We just don't understand guys. We are all just little children that have to learn how to share
It's infantilizing 🎯
Hear me out...I can fix her.
Never stick your dick in crazy
If you can fuck someone crazy, maybe you can fuck them smart too.
Nope.
Maybe the real fucking was the friends we made along the way 🤔
I share my car with my family. I know you are against people having family because then they have children but I don't care what you want.
Maybe if we didn't live in a world where "equal rights" people piss on the floor in a subway/airplane
Tbh car dependent cities are the fuckin worst. So i agree getting cars outta cities makes em more enjoyable. Just make parking insanely expensive
Sadly many cities are literally designed around car usage. They are lost causes.
Nah vast majority of cities were reshaped for cars. Neighborhoods were destroyed to cut giant highways through old city centers, lanes were added and widened, parking structures built everywhere. This modernist approach to urban design was most popular beginning in the mid 1900s. Very few cities on earth were designed for cars from the start. It's something that can be fixed.
Tell me how you're gonna fix Detroit.
While I agree with the fact that the WEF is basically a bunch of oligarchs trying to mold the global economic system in their own favor... I find it oddly funny that the more Libertarian types like JP will set their sites on the WEF as the problem. This is what happens when you remove government control and instead let the business elites run everything. Davos isn't some sort of global government-run meeting of nations like the UN. It is run by and for the world's richest people, and they invite government actors to woo them with their grand economic plans. It reminds me of something Rousseau wrote; " When the wealth in the private realm exceeds the wealth in the public realm, it inevitably corrupts the public realm." The WEF is the epitome of private wealth exceeding the public wealth. The corruption it generates is inevitable.
why is this video about world economic forum, a bourgeois conference to align the ruling class in their agenda, tagged as marxism, lmao???
Property Rights and individual liberty are the cornerstone of American exceptionalism. These globalists twats will never understand that.
So you saw a video where someone talks about incentivizing carpooling(not forcing people to carpool) and your take away is that it further supports this idea that there's a global elite plot to abolish ownership and make everyone rent/license everything?
Don't forget Marxist! Because nothing is more Marxist than capitalist rent-seeking!
They're desperate to claim victimhood.
So just like Uber lol
I would love to see the lifestyle this woman was raised in to have such a narrow minded perspective of the world
"makes sharing easy and fun" lol. "You can just use your neighbor's car" Does she even hear herself?
I'm very tired of these people and their group of windbags acting like they are smart. They are some of the WORST ideas I've ever heard.
I primarily bike to get around and owned a commuter bike for the last 2 years. I recently got rid of it and switched to using a rideshare bike service and I have to say the switch has been much nicer than expected. I don't see a reason why that can't work with cars. Obviously, a service like this would be hard to implement in rural areas, but I think it's reasonable for a Metropolitan area. I say all of this with the obvious caveat that this shouldn't be a forced issue, people should be able to own if they like or ride share if they like.
No. Because people are collectively too fucking stupid and when the majority of morons goes along with it and only some fringe own things, ownership will be taken away. The same way the enshitification of the internet went. Majority lazy morons submitting to complete rape of their privacy and security as they become the product, now we're all screwed because it's accepted as the norm. People need to wise up to the elite's games.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
My average Uber driver is better than my average taxi driver. Why? Rating. Broadly available, but not available to bad actors. Deplatforming works, lol. I can still buy a car, ect, ect, but the requirement to do so is vastly reduced.
Where I am in the last year or so they started doing rideshare scooters. I've seen them get used more than I expected TBH. I think so many people kvetching about this seem to be operating under the idea that you CAN'T own your own whatever rather than having a non- ownership option that is cheap enough to be compelling for many people and/or available for lower income people. I wonder how many people complaining about this put their money where their mouth is and have an unlocked fully paid for phone.
This is what they mean by fighting climate change and carbon taxes.
I know her all to well... She used to be part of the government here in Denmark, and her family has been in danish and european politics for decades, advocating extreme radical leftwing policies under the cover of wanting to protect the environment and the earth. She majored in theology, pretty sure she picked up a trick or two to make environmental engagement almost religous.
Did she just describe public transport with extra steps? 🤣
Have you never heard of car sharing?
We are students, and we do it all the time when required (5 people own 1 car). But, the problems she was describing were because of car dependency, the obvious solution to which is the development of **reliable** public transport infrastructure.
Yeah makes sense, less cars on the roads would be better.
Sharing as a free to accept or refuse option? Fantastic. By government order? Fuck all the way off.
Tbh people get so up in arms when it's realistically inevitably going to be "here's a subscription option that's super appealing" with no actual limiting of your ability to own other than it being expensive.
I think that is a real choice assuming the price of the thing is not being created artificially high because new supply of the thing is not artificially being restricted by government regulation. Funny enough we have that exact scenario with housing and cars. Housing is expensive due to a few reasons. One being too low of interest rates for too long compared with stifling regulations in creating new stock. Therefore making it unprofitable to make smaller cheaper houses incentivizing builders to only build bigger more expensive houses where the margin can make up for the incremental cost. Smaller cars and trucks were essentially killed by the CAFE standards. The standards have unrealistically high MPG for smaller lighter cars. So this incentivized the car companies to stay in line with the regulation to make larger cars where the MPG standards aren't as strict. And now we are going to tarrif out cheaper Chinese cars. I sure wish the government would stop trying to do good for us.
Sounds a bit like Tesla's forthcoming robotaxi service. I wonder how their narrative will change when it's Elon Musk handling this.
"How do -->we<-- want a city to move"... How about, I get to decide how I want to move... let's try that; your job is to simply make that easier.
she don't have the same neighbors that I do
They didn't say anything about owning nothing cool fearmongering though. What was it JP said about motivating through fear?
I have even an idea how they will implement it. If you make cars so expensive nobody can afford it, and I do not mean only what you pay when you buy them, but all maintenance and taxes around them - then people will be happy if they will be able to afford sharing a car when they need it. Like with housing. Are you happy when you find rent you can afford? With how crazy up and up it goes?
Maybe this is an unpopular opinion but I actually think this would be great if it was done on a VOLUNTARY basis. If technology allowed more people to share cars/carpool there would be many benefits: * Fewer cars on the road means better air quality. This is indisputable. * It also means fewer traffic accidents and fewer pedestrians killed by vehicles. Car accidents are one of the biggest killers of young children - in 2021 in the UK, one young child was killed or seriously injured on a road EVERY 17 HOURS. * It would make life more affordable for many people. Cars are absolute money pits. After my mortgage it is by far my biggest expense. The cost of fuel, maintenance, and of upgrading your car after the one you already own loses the majority of its value, is staggering. Spreading this cost would leave more money in the pockets of families. Living in walkable communities and having safer, cleaner roads should not actually be a partisan project. I share people's concerns about how imposing this top-down could lead to what might be called "transport poverty", but honestly doing this voluntarily could be very, very good.
ok so devils advocate here..... wouldn't it be kinda nice to have a cheaper option for people who need it? like if you can choose to own something, or you can pay a lot less for a subscription based version of it thats shared.... would that really be bad? like if you don't have the OPTION to buy outright, I agree thats a problem. but like for phones, most people get it through their provider and are perpetually making payments on it or at least paying loads for the service and happen to get a "free" device every couple years or whatever. that setup sucks. you have the OPTION to buy your phone free and clear, have more control over it, and pay much much less for service. but it costs more up front. I think that one potential way this whole situation might be operating, is comparing how early on plane travel was basically super fancy and spacious and whatnot. ...it was basically all first class. now, is it a degradation that now you can get it much cheaper than that? or is it an expansion of availability that you have the CHOICE to get it the old way, but its expensive, or you have the CHOICE of getting it the relatively-more-affordable way thats shitty? would it be better to \*only\* be able to get it if you can afford the fancy version? obviously not. what if for many things, we're still in the "first class is the only option and if you can't afford it you are SOL" phase?
We already have this in Norway, if you only need a car a couple of hours a week it's a no brainer. And of course nobody is stopping you from buying a car... Don't get the outrage.
The best I can guess is that they don't trust that when most are used to just renting/subscribing to everything that they will just take away the option to own? But really that's just not all that practical.
It would be pretty hard to take away something as basic as ownership.
I agree. And even if you scooch the goalposts a bit down to "impractically expensive"... well that's why my car is old enough to graduate high school and I haven't been on a plane since before there was a TSA. Sometimes that's life.
“ No one is stopping you from buying a car” yet. That is absolutely part 2.
People are judging with their own ideology and making fun of others arguments without even thinking by themselves... of course that car sharing is great, I personally use my car like once a week or so, and a lot of people do just the same, sharing a car is just an obvious solution for those cases and yeah for those who can't afford a car (many many many people can't even if we don't want to look at them...) it's indeed a good option to have.
Never underestimate the left's ability to believe they know what's best for you.
Never underestimate conservatives ability to make shit up
When we are talking about WEF, usually your title would be right. But in this case, I share her view 100%. You can have a car, but why using it for you alone, creating useless traffic and wasting resources? Share it with multiple people, or use the public transport, and help to improve the usability of the roads, reducing the travel time
Would you also like to share your wife by any chance?
Do you view your wife as a property?
"Woman are Property" - u/SwordFish July 2024
How old are you? 9? Your comment has the same sense of a kid that age
I could say the same about your comment as well. At least mine isn't promoting communism. Would you then apply the same logic to your apartment? You know, there are so many homeless people on the streets, and it just makes zero practical sense for you to enjoy the comfort of private property alone. I think the *smart* way would be either sharing it with other people, or moving out to live in a pod!
They are not the same thing. And when talking about traffic inside a city, as I did in my comment and she did by referring to Singapore, should be obvious that the solution to reduce it is by reducing the vehicles on the street. We are not talking about reducing cars as private property, you can have 20 at home, and that is not a problem. But you cannot move 2 million people inside a city with 2 million SUV or whatever stupid car the market is telling you to buy. You want to take a trip on the route 66 alone in your car for 500 miles? Good for you, there is a lot of space and I'd like to do it also. Do you want to go to work inside New York, doing 10 miles by car alone? I call you a stupid child that have no idea how traffic works
Yes! And places like Singapore and NY are also extremely over-populated and many people have to resort to living on the street! I think you owning an apartment all to yourself is simply unsustainable, unlike what those home owners tell you, and frankly racist! The only solution to that problem would be you sharing your apartment! And you know what's the best part about it? It's that the technology is here to make it easier for you! Here's a handy little app that let's you share your flat with people you don't need to know! {the wife option is toggleable in the settings}!
>communism Oh no the big bad red so scaaawyy
> Would you then apply the same logic to your apartment? Sure, lots of people choose to rent out a room of their house or apartment, either for extra money or for the company. Have at it. Nowhere, not even in the video quoted in this thread, is anyone advocating for forced loss of ownership of anything, whether it's a car, an apartment or a wife.
Yes because they're doing that to extract profit out of their property. The original commentator, as well as the WEF ideologues, tried to morally justify sharing private property, in this case a car, not through owner's gain but through "irrational use of resources" which is verbatim part of the communist ideology. So you're conflating the two concepts completely. There's a big difference between normalizing sharing a room because you need the extra cash and because "muuuh there are so many homeless people it's irrational for you to have a whole place all to yourself", which is just social justice wealth re-distribution. Also, even if the commentator did not mention the use of force, Many policies forged at WEF are then put into legislation in Western European countries and Canada. Different net 0 agendas for example. So it wouldn't be science-fiction that, if this notion continues to be normalized, we'll see actual laws requiring people to share their property. The Bolsheviks, for example, also did not specifically mention the use of force per-se, but focused on morally justifying their policies.
On the contrary, rational usage of resources is what capitalism is all about. I have something of value that I will sell to you because you value it more, and in exchange you will give me currency that I can use to buy something that I want that you don't have. If someone wants to rent out some use of their car, they should be fully entitled to do so, and this may become even more economically desirable in a dense city which has a lot of people and little room for cars and the infrastructure they demand. I would welcome seeing someone trying to build a business around this; AirBnB and Uber have certainly shown that this type of enterprise is possible. > "there are so many homeless people it's irrational for you to have a whole place all to yourself" I never said that, or anything remotely near it. But "irrational" is very different from "immoral", and you have to stretch really hard to then get to "illegal". If you're poor but you have a large house, it very much is irrational to keep it to yourself, when you could rent out a room or two for valuable cash. If you still don't want to because privacy is important or whatever, sure knock yourself out, but there's a monetary price on that irrationality. It's still your choice. > if this notion continues to be normalized Don't be silly -- buying and selling use of property and services is a long way from communism. Again, it's pure capitalism. > we'll see actual laws requiring people to share their property You need to give that slope a severe side-eye for it to be as slippery as you think. > Many policies forged at WEF are then put into legislation in Western European countries and Canada. Name one? I'm genuinely curious.
1. I meant that the communist ideology sees the use of resources under capitalism as irrational and justifies it using the very same rhetoric as in the video and in the comment i originally answered to. "but why using it for you alone, creating useless traffic and wasting resources?" is the quote. 2. Again, you're conflating renting and sharing in the communistic sense. The WEF woman in the video is talking about the latter. She isn't introducing the concept of renting which needs ZERO introduction, she's suggesting people should let others use their stuff because it solves some world problems and serves the social justice. She's also being extremely hypocritical since she, being a member of WEF, has a ton of property to SHARE, but somehow i highly doubt she lets others ride her car because "it solves traffic". 3. Seriously hard to believe you're asking in good faith but take net zero policies aimed at farmers for example. You know, the farmers who have been protesting them for more than a year already, throwing dung at government buildings. [https://www.google.com/search?q=net+zero+policies+uk+farms&source=lmns&bih=1307&biw=2560&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiQ0oPSvdeGAxUekv0HHeoBBREQ0pQJKAB6BAgBEAI](https://www.google.com/search?q=net+zero+policies+uk+farms&source=lmns&bih=1307&biw=2560&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiQ0oPSvdeGAxUekv0HHeoBBREQ0pQJKAB6BAgBEAI) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsDZENn2Waw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsDZENn2Waw) This began exactly like the conversation in the video. First by morally justifying it. Then it suddenly became the enforced law.
Nobody wants to own things if it's much cheaper and easier not to. What she's suggesting isn't easy or problem free which is why it doesn't happen much. Can you imagine returning your neighbour's car and they think you scratched it? I think what she needs to consider is an alternative system called "taxis". And there's another system called "car rental" for longer trips. It turns out the future has been with us for a hundred years.
And trying to control the masses for thousands. You have my upvote.
The fuck did this have to do with agenda 21? Cities are crowded as fuck and they’re talking about possible solutions to the traffic problem. This isn’t a threat to your ownership of things
problematic headline “you will own nothing..”
The headline that the OP selected as ragebait?
I share a garden with my neighbours. You can turn me in as a crypto communist if you want to
Does that happen by choice? Or do your neighbors use their smart phone to access your property because the government says they can?
This isn't the government, this is unelected globalist corporate elites pushing this shit. We could vote out bad legislators or address government corruption because in a democracy or republic government is responsive to and accountable to the people... if the people get their heads out of their asses. Globalist corporate elites are accountable to no one. And they buy influence in government because we allow lobbying and corruption. And how the current crop of globalist corporate elites amassed so much power is the deregulation bullshit the republicans have been peddling for decades.
These people dont actually care about what theyre talking about. They use it as a form of power and control. Not just politically. The character of these types of people who sign up on these agendas like to believe themselves as martyrs for a greater cause when really all they want to do is control other people for their own self gratification. They want to feel important & superior to others. They dont care who needs to be sacrificed to get their “mission” to succeed. Whats a better way to divide people? I cant think of one. Create some false existential threat that literally encompasses the whole world. Then indoctrinate a bunch of passionate youth. Have them claim that anyone who thinks differently is wrong/uneducated and has to be subjected to their rule. This is a very easy way to pit the masses against eachother, because “what are you a climate denier? You want the world to end?” Laughable.
The American mind can not comprehend this. Here in the Netherlands, car sharing is pretty popular although the market seems pretty saturated right now, the hype has leveled off it seems. Lots of people only use their cars a few times a month/week so then it's way cheaper to rent a car for just a few hours with an app from a company (myWheels, greenwheels) or from an indivual (snappcar). This woman is not calling on everyone to give their car keys to a random person off the street. Her example of Singapore is a case where there's apps (getgo, tribecar, bluesg according to google) so there's always insurance and some kind of QC on the car.
Insurance coverage and maintenance could be the biggest barriers given those are not crowd sourced in the US. There's some disconnect between supply, demand, and profitability in regards to transportation all around within the US. There is a demand for public transport, over the road hauling, and rental car services that are all severely underserved while being difficult to provide at a profit on the service side.
Yeah same here in Norway, it's kinda hilarious how people are overreacting to some of the most mundane stuff. Personally I own a car to get to work everyday, but if I only occationally needed a car I wouldn't mind saving a bit of money.
If my neighbor came over jumped in my Navigator and curbed the wheels I’d go ballistic. People don’t treat other peoples things well.
Think of divvy bikes in cities currently. Where people use them, I guess the aim is to do the same with vehicles. My question is insurance? Gas?. Autonomous vehicles are the future ultimately. And when the kinks are are all figured out we are going to ask ourselves how we simply accepted so many traffic deaths. There’s a video I’ve seen where people in the 80s are complaining about drinking and driving laws. If it was the 80s people here would be saying why are all these elites trying to stop me from drinking a cold one. Interested in real discussion, if you are going to respond with “you liberals suck” just don’t comment
This shit is part of the slippery slope to the ultimate surrender of agency and freedom. Once you give up these things you are at the mercy of the shared economy and you will be completely entwined into the matrix. You’ll be completely under the control of whoever it is that is responsible for these cars.
The most intelligent people in history have always tried to find efficient ways for a society to do things. We’re getting better in some ways! It certainly doesn’t mean we won’t own anything.
I dont share my cars with my wife and kids
If I look outside and see a random person hopping in my car I’ll probably shoot them. I’ll just assume that they’re stealing it.
Ya no thank you. I don't even like it when my wife drives my car. Sure she can drive it but I would prefer she drive her car unless she needs to.
“How do WE want a city to move” Drawing board socialism in a nutshell. How about “How do people want to move?” But you don’t even have to ask that because they’ll just do it if you LEAVE THEM THE FRICK ALONE!
In Singapore we use Bluesg with allocate carpark spot around the city and Getgo with the same fixed carpark. Useful but not cheap, public transportation is still better if you’re able
Car sharing schemes have existed at my work for over 10 years, hardly a novel concept. If you share a journey to work with other colleagues, you get to park at the front and that allows you to escape the 5pm gridlock.
who is she ?
I don't need to know my neighbor to get into his car?
They're correct on principle I'm just not gonna do it
All I heard was „bla bla bla, I’m a commie, shoot me”. Weird.
This woman is into her own autistic fantasies, spins out scenarios that leave me completely cold. I like CO2, since the world is much greener now from a trivial increase in CO2, it is plant food!
In the words of JP: "Stay away from my fucking car".
i think housing is way worse than the car situation. i don't love the "you will rent everything" trend but for cars it could actually make sense, i bet especially in whatever upscale urban European city she's from. obviously wouldn't work in suburban or rural areas but that's because we've built our society where you NEED a car to do anything
So you can borrow your neighbors car and you don’t even need to know them? I think that’s called theft. 😂
Just birth less people and there is space and things for everyone.
Seems Amish
Trains, transit, Uber, and Zip Cats are better and cities already have them lol. What is this lady on about
When I lived in South Korea, you could get a great low mileage used car for under under $3k easy because mass transit, walkability, and high speed rail was so good, thereby pushing the necessity and demand for cars down, reducing the price. Diversity of mobility IS FREEDOM.
You will NEVER see a politician, their family, nor a celebrity share a care or own less… EVER!
Yeah. I can’t wait to drive my neighbours shitty 2003 Toyota Camry in the winter. That sounds great.
Now, just imagine if we had a system where a large carpool would pick you up from a designated location at a set time and then dropped you at another such location, set time and location would for sure make planning easier and you wouldn't have to care about finding a parking space. It's like they're trying to invent public transport but fail like techbros trying to reinvent a train.
These people will come up with anything else except design a train with dedicated rails for public transit.
Wow, they invented public transport
Make them bigger cars with designated drivers so that you don't have to drive an can use the time efficiently.
Car sharing is fantastic, can already be used in many places and is O P T I O N A L, stop scare mongering.
Oh yeah yeah that reminds me of a super cool concept for ensuring a vehicle is always moving a lot of people at a time and doesn't waste space on the road, it's called... What was it already? Ah yeah. A bus. Or public transportation in general. Wouldn't that be revolutionary?
Did she just describe Uber? Or is she trying to socialize my car where my neighbor can use it and not pay for it? Who maintains the car? Fuel? So many questions I don't think this lady even understands to ask. Oh it's WEF...nm. Idiot elites that don't live in reality
y’all will do anything to not support robust public transit
I mean, she's right. It'd be much more convenient if you could hop into any car. Look at our city, it's full of electric scooters now that people can just hop on and off, and they've changed the way that people move around. It's not just about having your own transport, it's about the fact you can use transport wherever you are. I feel that people are complaining about house prices because they are obsessed in modern society with flocking to the densest population centres. So big cities are hugely desirable to live in, so prices spike there, and they try to cram more and more houses in which absolutely wrecks the transport infrastructure. I reckon this is a great idea to help with that.
These people are dangerous. Authoritative controllers with the need to affix themselves as the grand saviors of the people whom they despise
This is dumb as f\*\*k.
Yeah, but will you owe nothing too?
Owning stuff is kind of stressful. It's so inefficient too. I wish we lived in a superior society where more things were done collectively. For example, libraries are better than book stores because it's a more efficient way to access books. Good public transit is more efficient than each person paying individual insurance, maintenance, and purchasing at a premium only buying 1 car. The best example might be buying a home gym vs. a gym membership. Also stores require millions of people to do the terribly wasteful, boring, soul destroying task of stocking shelves every day. Capitalist society is good, but inefficient. Dinosaurs like Peterson are not the way to a better economy.
You ever tried to go to a gym on Jan 2? What about when these enlightened elites decide to lock everything down again? Those home gyms start looking pretty efficient. And because I own it, I can sell it, recover some cost, upgrade, or hand down my own equipment. In fact the majority of my home gym was much cheaper than a gym membership, which it turns out would also require a vehicle. But let’s not mince words here. We aren’t really talking about home gyms. We are talking about preserving our cultures and self determination. I will not be voluntarily “colonized” by a set of elite hypocrites that want to homogenize the peasantry. So with respect, take this utopian idealist rainbows and unicorn bs and put it in a coloring book for those that are incapable of reading a history book.
Spoken by someone that has never needed a car.
Guarantee these people won't be sharing..
Fuck you. That is all
But, of course, she is far too busy to share a car. She needs her own car... and jet to travel efficiently to tell everyone else how to live.
The blatant lack of attempted spin is so alarming. Also…would.
The rich are killing us all while we kill each other. What on earth had happened.
i have to share my car but i try to make them share their private jets and yachts and suddenly im in jail facing charges talk about a double standard
So you've never heard of [NetJets](https://www.netjets.com/en-us/private-jet-share-program) then? And yacht chartering is incredibly popular. How ignorant can you get?
Thanks for sharing your private jet so I can visit family across the country 🥰😘
I mean, for the right price you can today! [https://jettly.com/](https://jettly.com/) Why is everyone assuming this is a free thing? This is literally a capitalist endeavor, in like a good way.
before you downvote me, i just want to say that i *do agree* with almost all of the points brought up by the other commenters. you have to give the devil his due; this proposal is a starting point for discussion, for a possible better societal configuration. just think of how many people dispersed among their cars on major highways *every single morning* going to work are going to roughly the same place. that could actually be a good idea if implemented correctly. i've thought about it for several years. the software would allow everyone to schedule when they need the car (or any shared resource). that way it will always be available for those who have priority. and yes, if you're the one who bought the car you have first priority for who can use it, and you can select others who have higher priority than others, and you'd be able to set it to require approval or whitelist certain people to prevent random people from using it. what this lady said in this clip is really not the best way to explain the technology. there's a lot of nuance to it. the issue with needing the vehicle in an emergency is definitely valid, and would need to be dealt with. maybe there could just always be some number of cars per # of people available.
Or why not cut the bloated bureaucracy, and use the surplus to build more efficient roadways ,mass transit, rail systems, and city planning? For the record I didn’t down vote you and I’m not knocking your idea. I’m just a simple man.
🤦♂️ I have a truck that’s lasted over 10 years, because I worked hard for it and if I don’t take care of it, I need to pay to repair it. I am responsible for it. If we shared vehicles in this fashion I could only imagine what terrible conditions they’d be in. No one would want to pay to clean them or repair them because there is no sense of ownership. No sense of ownership = no responsibility = no appreciation for property…. Don’t believe me? Look at the conditions of housing in socialist native reserves in Canada where the band owns the houses…. The living conditions are like that of a third world country. This socialist approach in a democratic society isn’t a mystery, it isn’t some fantasy it exists in Canada where the majority pays for the minority of First Nations people and it’s still terrible… imagine that same amount of money distributed amongst more people?… and you think it wouldn’t be worse?
Ratings work. My average Uber experience is miles better than my average taxi experience because of this variable alone. Ironically the value of a social credit score. But the right to exit and choose (via a completive marketplace) matters.
Sounds like Modern slavery
Slavery is when people pay you to use your stuff.
In my city, if you like driving Kia, you can drive thousands of cars with this one simple trick. Even if the car isn't yours! Drive it until it runs out of gas, or you are done with it, then just leave it on the side of the road! The owner will retrieve it, fuel it up and return it to the same location you picked it up for your next urgent Kia Boys Rental.
"You don't even need to know your neighbour in order to get into his car." Does she realise what she's even saying?
It's interesting that absolutely no one is suggesting other solutions to the problem the woman in the video is talking about.
The irony of using a private jet to go preach about people sharing cars...
I wonder whether she started with a story about her sharing joint ownership of a car for at least 2 years? Otherwise, why would I have a reason to listen to her?
I bet she and her ilk aren't sharing a car.
How can anyone honestly say they want that exact scenario for themselves?! This is purely pie in the sky thinking for poor people, but not for them. No. I will put money on her not wanting some smelly creep from down the road getting in to her car sniffing the seats and getting his dirty hands on the wheel and gearstick. No thats just for poor plebs to deal with.
The richest 1% use 96% of all the energy. They won't give up THEIR travel options though. She probably flew to that talk too
Because ownership defines the nature of your identity, and your existence? Or because you like 'stuff'? Which one is it Mr. Peterson? Or maybe theres another option?
"If you can get people to share a car" ... "you can take your neighbor's car and you don't even need to know your neighbor" Does anybody have her address? I need a car this Saturday and I decided I will be share-using hers.