4 ms·

The only way in which she anything she said could be consistent with mine is if she used the term "the elites" to mean very specifically "CRE investors." This i

by kolbe 3y ago

The only way in which she anything she said could be consistent with mine is if she used the term "the elites" to mean very specifically "CRE investors." This is a definition she never once even implied, let alone stated.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
The entire article implied it. It is literally the subject of the article. From the article: >"It’s about real estate" >"Corporate landlords currently hold $1.2 trillion in loans on office towers all over the country" It is being a bit pedantic to argue around what a 'CRE Investor' IS. Who 'owns' versus who has a 'lease' since the 'lease' is still a debt obligation. And you don't have to be specifically a 'CRE Investor', you just need to own or lease a lot of CRE to be impacted. Here is better response from this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37113486 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37113486 -> Corporations own a lot of corp-real-estate -> that corp-real-estate is now empty and under-utilized -> this could lead to a corp-real-estate market crash -> SO companies have a 'Motivation' to require people to return to the office to fill those offices. She cited other sources. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/500-billion-office-real-estate-221017310.html?ref=okdoomer.io https://finance.yahoo.com/news/500-billion-office-real-estat... https://www.npr.org/2023/05/16/1174938708/commercial-real-estate-property-offices-work-from-home-remote-work?ref=okdoomer.io https://www.npr.org/2023/05/16/1174938708/commercial-real-es... https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/empty-office-buildings-downtown-what-happened-rcna77443?ref=okdoomer.io https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/empty-office-buildi... https://www.npr.org/2023/05/06/1174468821/companies-are-defaulting-on-loan-payments-for-unused-office-buildings?ref=okdoomer.io https://www.npr.org/2023/05/06/1174468821/companies-are-defa...
- kolbe 3y ago
  If you think statements like "It’s about real estate" are somehow a redefinition of a different term ("the elites") used elsewhere in the document to make it mean something no one else in the world thinks it means, then we have no business even talking to each other. Your opinion of how reading works is so different from mine that it results in us living in two different worlds. I'm sure I'm right when I say this college professor knows how to communicate clearly, and if she had intended for "the elites" to mean "a small subset of elites who have large interest in CRE prices," that she would have found a clearer term, instead of a Marxist-charged one like "the elites," most often used for the purpose of throwing shit in the fan of corporate America, rather than arguing genuine points.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    >> "the elites" to mean "a small subset of elites who have large interest in CRE prices" That is exactly what is meant. I'm sorry if it really needs to be spelled out like leading a horse to water. It was the point of the entire article, even if there was not a specific sentence clearly equating a=b. There were links to other backing documents. Maybe she could have drawn the line a little more clearly, but it was a short piece, maybe she didn't think she needed to make it a big thesis. For "elites". Is it "Marxist-Charged"? It is a little funny to be re-defining the term again, given that for 6 years Republicans have been using it as a derogatory term for "educated liberals", not for "Corporate America". Now all of a sudden, if someone uses the term "Elite" to refer to "Corporate America", now that makes them Marxist by besmirching "Corporate America"? I do agree. It is hard to communicate in this day and age when words change meaning from month to month, and the Left/Right are working with different definitions. Any definition of 'Elites', in any conversation gets wrapped up in different opinions on who the 'Elite's are. One side thinks the 'Elite's are Socialist, educated liberals, the other side think the 'Elite's are corporate CEO's. Depending on your side, you get triggered in the opposite direction.
    - kolbe 3y ago
      > That is exactly what is meant. I know you believe this and there's nothing I can do to change your mind. You do you, but nothing you say with your ridiculous leaps of logic and assumptions will change my choice to read it in the most direct and logical way.
      - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        Sure But don't think that your ultra-literal reading is more 'correct' for being literal. When someone says it is a 'blue moon' this month, do you get upset when it isn't blue? I think we both know you have an axe to grind, and are just as extremely biased in one direction as you think I am biased in the other direction. Best wishes on becoming more self aware. The world needs it. >>> "a Marxist-charged one like "the elites," most often used for the purpose of throwing shit in the fan of corporate America, rather than arguing genuine points." (Actually, I'm beginning to suspect this is a Troll, hard to tell these days. Let me know if this was just a long joke.)

by kolbe 3y ago

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

The entire article implied it. It is literally the subject of the article. From the article: >"It’s about real estate" >"Corporate landlords currently hold $1.2 trillion in loans on office towers all over the country" It is being a bit pedantic to argue around what a 'CRE Investor' IS. Who 'owns' versus who has a 'lease' since the 'lease' is still a debt obligation. And you don't have to be specifically a 'CRE Investor', you just need to own or lease a lot of CRE to be impacted. Here is better response from this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37113486 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37113486 -> Corporations own a lot of corp-real-estate -> that corp-real-estate is now empty and under-utilized -> this could lead to a corp-real-estate market crash -> SO companies have a 'Motivation' to require people to return to the office to fill those offices. She cited other sources. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/500-billion-office-real-estate-221017310.html?ref=okdoomer.io https://finance.yahoo.com/news/500-billion-office-real-estat... https://www.npr.org/2023/05/16/1174938708/commercial-real-estate-property-offices-work-from-home-remote-work?ref=okdoomer.io https://www.npr.org/2023/05/16/1174938708/commercial-real-es... https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/empty-office-buildings-downtown-what-happened-rcna77443?ref=okdoomer.io https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/empty-office-buildi... https://www.npr.org/2023/05/06/1174468821/companies-are-defaulting-on-loan-payments-for-unused-office-buildings?ref=okdoomer.io https://www.npr.org/2023/05/06/1174468821/companies-are-defa...

kolbe 3y ago
If you think statements like "It’s about real estate" are somehow a redefinition of a different term ("the elites") used elsewhere in the document to make it mean something no one else in the world thinks it means, then we have no business even talking to each other. Your opinion of how reading works is so different from mine that it results in us living in two different worlds. I'm sure I'm right when I say this college professor knows how to communicate clearly, and if she had intended for "the elites" to mean "a small subset of elites who have large interest in CRE prices," that she would have found a clearer term, instead of a Marxist-charged one like "the elites," most often used for the purpose of throwing shit in the fan of corporate America, rather than arguing genuine points.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  >> "the elites" to mean "a small subset of elites who have large interest in CRE prices" That is exactly what is meant. I'm sorry if it really needs to be spelled out like leading a horse to water. It was the point of the entire article, even if there was not a specific sentence clearly equating a=b. There were links to other backing documents. Maybe she could have drawn the line a little more clearly, but it was a short piece, maybe she didn't think she needed to make it a big thesis. For "elites". Is it "Marxist-Charged"? It is a little funny to be re-defining the term again, given that for 6 years Republicans have been using it as a derogatory term for "educated liberals", not for "Corporate America". Now all of a sudden, if someone uses the term "Elite" to refer to "Corporate America", now that makes them Marxist by besmirching "Corporate America"? I do agree. It is hard to communicate in this day and age when words change meaning from month to month, and the Left/Right are working with different definitions. Any definition of 'Elites', in any conversation gets wrapped up in different opinions on who the 'Elite's are. One side thinks the 'Elite's are Socialist, educated liberals, the other side think the 'Elite's are corporate CEO's. Depending on your side, you get triggered in the opposite direction.
  - kolbe 3y ago
    > That is exactly what is meant. I know you believe this and there's nothing I can do to change your mind. You do you, but nothing you say with your ridiculous leaps of logic and assumptions will change my choice to read it in the most direct and logical way.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      Sure But don't think that your ultra-literal reading is more 'correct' for being literal. When someone says it is a 'blue moon' this month, do you get upset when it isn't blue? I think we both know you have an axe to grind, and are just as extremely biased in one direction as you think I am biased in the other direction. Best wishes on becoming more self aware. The world needs it. >>> "a Marxist-charged one like "the elites," most often used for the purpose of throwing shit in the fan of corporate America, rather than arguing genuine points." (Actually, I'm beginning to suspect this is a Troll, hard to tell these days. Let me know if this was just a long joke.)