Sure. They might be commissioning a harvard business professor to write about productivity gains of being in-office. They might lobby for some regulation to force a liability onto companies with remote workers. But what they aren't doing is getting 1000 of the richest people in the world into a room and coordinating a conspiracy to help some corner of the room not go bankrupt.
Since the article is in line with what you said, coordination could be through commissioning a Harvard writer, or lobbying, or regulation, either way it isn't explicitly stated. I get the impression that you are arguing against a point of view that you are assuming.
This is clearly you, reading (a lot) into what she said, and then reacting to your own pre-formed perceptions of an argument you think she made.
Kind of like when people get into internal mental arguments with fictional others, and start talking to themselves. Then getting so wound up they blurt something out of context, or march on the capital.
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.
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.
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.
>> "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.
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.
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.)
