Imagine being convinced that giving away what little money you have to a huge corporation was "right".
DogMuffins
joined 1 year ago
Fuck I would love to see actual consequences.
Bit worried that the gag order doesn't directly preclude this though. Like yeah it's clearly not in the spirit of, but is it a contravention?
You're right, but the "so-called" only becomes suspicious when it's included unnecessarily.
From OPs example if you just omit it the sentence is fine and doesn't imply that the friends are not actually friends.
In the first type of usage, "so-called" provides information that the reader is unaware of, so it's use does not imply the name is inappropriate.
In the second type of usage it's presumed the reader already knows the name, inserting "so-called" emphasises that the subject has whatever name.
Wait. They reluctant to sanction him in-case he ignores them and they have to decide whether to jail him?
That's true, but I didn't go into that because OP didn't ask.
Here in Aus local council revenue is a function of property value.
It's insidious.
It's not influence as in "let's have a logical and transparent discussion about wfh vs on premise".
It's rumours, back channel favours, manipulating numbers, etcetera.
Bear in mind not all companies are publicly traded. Plenty of closely held companies were started by grand dad and run on rumour and here say.
There's a lot of dumb answers here.
people say that the motivation is to raise real estate prices
It's not the sole motivation and it's not even "a" motivation for some businesses.
Basically, wealthy people generally are going to have all sorts of investments. If you own any commercial property then you're going to exercise whatever influence you have to support people continuing to work on premise. That influence is often in the form of shareholders putting pressure on management.
So maybe they lower lease rates to attract new tenants.
The golden rule of commercial leasing is that you never, ever, reduce the lease cost because the value of the property is calculated directly from lease value. Reduced lease cost is reduced property value. In valuing a commercial property the lack of a tenant is not important.
tenants stuck in higher rate leases start doing the math on penalties for breaking their existing lease vs the new prices.
Generally with a commercial lease your only real options to exit are to find someone to take on your lease. If lease prices have dropped then no one will want to take on your dud lease.
The fuck is a fire stick?
If that's true it seems very reductive.
Widening the gag order sounds much more appropriate.
Although if idiots were to show up at the home of AG James you might reconsider charging Trump with whatever crime seemed appropriate.