4 ms·

Huh? Is that sarcasm? If not, perhaps you can enlighten us as to the root cause of the problems with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Please tell me it's

Huh? Is that sarcasm? If not, perhaps you can enlighten us as to the root cause of the problems with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Please tell me it's Yankee Imperialism. It's always our fault.

Dylan16807 11y ago
You saw the end of the article, right?
- Natsu 11y ago
  I assume you mean this part: > Every time I wrote that Chavez was in fact direly mismanaging the economy, diverting investment funds that were needed to maintain oil output into social spending, I knew that I could look forward to receiving angry e-mails and comments accusing me of trying to sabotage his achievements for the benefit of my corporatist paymaster. And in fairness (though without minimizing his appalling authoritarianism), those policies undoubtedly did improve the lives of some incredibly poor people. The problem here is that there's nothing to enlighten anyone not already in the know about who this "paymaster" is. As near as I can tell this is some libertarian journalist publishing an "I told you so" article ("This was predictable. Indeed, many people predicted it, including me [...]"). I assumed that the respondents were saying there was some big, obvious conflict of interest, like a stake in the money made off of their oil. However, Google could not enlighten me as to what that might be and her bio on Wikipedia only lists her working for media outlets, so I'm left in the dark here. I probably wouldn't ever read Bloomberg if it had not appeared on HN.
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    That would be a strange, rude and unhelpful way to point out a conflict. It's just poking fun at the politically paranoid that lash out at anyone that points out their mistakes.
    - Natsu 11y ago
      Hmm, well, we ended up closer to confusing. I couldn't make sense of your comment at all, not knowing anything at all about this author I assumed there was some reference I was in the dark about.
      - Dylan16807 11y ago
        The author mentioned nonsense emails calling them a shill because people don't want to accept reality. Someone made a comment just like those emails. Pretty simple. It's already a reference, no reason to assume it's a deeper reference.
mehwoot 11y ago
Read the article.
PhantomGremlin 11y ago
Replying to myself. Sorry about this, guys. I messed up. I've read Megan McArdle off-and-on for years. I am familiar with her writing. So when I read the part that said "angry e-mails ... my corporatist paymaster", I thought "well, of course you will get those". And that was the end of it. My brain was thinking of the messed up situation in Venezuela, and probably just set aside the "paymaster" remarks. And then Ted remarked on exactly those words. My brain wasn't thinking of Megan's lament, it was thinking about Venezuela. That's why Ted's comment seemed out of the blue for me. In retrospect I should have re-read the article to see if I missed anything before I replied to Ted. Once again, sorry.

Dylan16807 11y ago

You saw the end of the article, right?

Natsu 11y ago
I assume you mean this part: > Every time I wrote that Chavez was in fact direly mismanaging the economy, diverting investment funds that were needed to maintain oil output into social spending, I knew that I could look forward to receiving angry e-mails and comments accusing me of trying to sabotage his achievements for the benefit of my corporatist paymaster. And in fairness (though without minimizing his appalling authoritarianism), those policies undoubtedly did improve the lives of some incredibly poor people. The problem here is that there's nothing to enlighten anyone not already in the know about who this "paymaster" is. As near as I can tell this is some libertarian journalist publishing an "I told you so" article ("This was predictable. Indeed, many people predicted it, including me [...]"). I assumed that the respondents were saying there was some big, obvious conflict of interest, like a stake in the money made off of their oil. However, Google could not enlighten me as to what that might be and her bio on Wikipedia only lists her working for media outlets, so I'm left in the dark here. I probably wouldn't ever read Bloomberg if it had not appeared on HN.
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  That would be a strange, rude and unhelpful way to point out a conflict. It's just poking fun at the politically paranoid that lash out at anyone that points out their mistakes.
  - Natsu 11y ago
    Hmm, well, we ended up closer to confusing. I couldn't make sense of your comment at all, not knowing anything at all about this author I assumed there was some reference I was in the dark about.
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      The author mentioned nonsense emails calling them a shill because people don't want to accept reality. Someone made a comment just like those emails. Pretty simple. It's already a reference, no reason to assume it's a deeper reference.

mehwoot 11y ago

Read the article.

PhantomGremlin 11y ago

Replying to myself. Sorry about this, guys. I messed up. I've read Megan McArdle off-and-on for years. I am familiar with her writing. So when I read the part that said "angry e-mails ... my corporatist paymaster", I thought "well, of course you will get those". And that was the end of it. My brain was thinking of the messed up situation in Venezuela, and probably just set aside the "paymaster" remarks. And then Ted remarked on exactly those words. My brain wasn't thinking of Megan's lament, it was thinking about Venezuela. That's why Ted's comment seemed out of the blue for me. In retrospect I should have re-read the article to see if I missed anything before I replied to Ted. Once again, sorry.