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 mainta

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.