3 ms·
Slightly wrong or ambiguous parsing, but, any employee of a billionaire also works, at least as well as any other sloppy natural communication.
by Brian_K_White 3y ago
Slightly wrong or ambiguous parsing, but, any employee of a billionaire also works, at least as well as any other sloppy natural communication.
- robertlagrant 3y agoWould the janitor of a company that has a share owned by a billionaire count? Surely a billionaire in this case is just a share owner.
- Brian_K_White 3y agoQuestion does not seem to apply. What point are you trying to make or what mystery baffles you about the concept of an employee of a billionaire?
- robertlagrant 3y agoWhy does being an employee of a billionaire matter? I could be a janitor.
- Brian_K_White 3y agoBeing an employee of a billionaire matters because the billionaire, and by proxy their employee, is held to a different standard than everyone else. They didn't say anything that implied this applied to every single emoyee of a billionaire, so the janitor who happens to work for a billionaire and happens to buy a stock doesn't change anything or invalidate that point. The employees being referenced are the ones employed to do trades for investors or for the company itself or for the billionaire themself (which might be a person or a group or a company).
- robertlagrant 3y agoSo this is, say, for people who invest for pension schemes that the billionaire happens to have a pension with, for example?