> The issue is that some people - two immediately come to mind - are quick to pounce on how a writer missed the points that are so obvious to them. Therefore the writer is a hack or a toady or something awful. Maybe, in a short piece, the writer couldn't say everything, and some generosity might be in order.
Not sure why you take this so personally. I happen to think the relation between state and capital, public and private, is extremely important, so any sort of trivializing of the state/public or decomplication of the relation should be ruthlessly criticized, which is why I "pounced."