KudoZ home » English » Economics

follow the money pointed

English translation: the voters were interested in money and they were facing in the same political direction (see below)

Advertisement

Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs
(or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
05:55 Mar 20, 2007
English to English translations [PRO]
Bus/Financial - Economics / history of economic thought
English term or phrase: follow the money pointed
I conclude with an unworthy hypothesis regarding past When post-Depression Roosevelt’s New Deal provided exciting job opportunities, first the junior academic faculties moved leftward. To get back ahead of their followers, subsequently the senior academic faculties shoved ahead of them. As post-Reagan, post-Thatcher electorates turned rightward, follow the money pointed, alas, in only one direction. So to speak, we eat our own cooking.
I am translating this text into Russian. Can't understand the meaning. Thanks in advance!
Yelena Pestereva
Russian Federation
Local time: 00:48
English translation:the voters were interested in money and they were facing in the same political direction (see below)
Explanation:
The phrase you ask about:

In the era following Reagan's presidency and Thatcher's Prime Ministry, voters began to become more right-wing. Sadly, they were interested first and foremost in money and they were facing in the same political direction. In other words, when they were voting, their main consideration was money and the writer considers this to be a regrettable fact.

Possibly it's partly the 'alas' which has confused you, as far as the phrase in your question is concerned. If you take it out for a moment and add a comma, you have:

'electorates turned rightward, follow the money, pointed, in only one direction'.

However,



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2007-03-20 07:02:32 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry - I was interrupted and I clicked the mouse at the wrong moment.

However, the entire sentence is quite difficult to follow, within the context.

"To get back ahead of their followers, subsequently the senior academic faculties shoved ahead of them. As post-Reagan, post-Thatcher electorates turned rightward, follow the money pointed, alas, in only one direction. So to speak, we eat our own cooking."

Perhaps this is what the writer is saying?

Young academics became left-wing in their thinking. Senior academics felt that they were being left behind. So they became even more left-wing than their juniors. Just the same as, in the era following Reagan's presidency and Thatcher's Prime Ministry, voters began to become more right-wing. Sadly, they are interested first and foremost in money and they are facing in the same political direction.

The tenses are confusing. Above, I put everything in the past. However, here I've followed the author's sequence of tenses and left his/her words about the money in the present. I've also put the passive 'pointed' back into the present. I also think that, although it's quite permissable to reduce the passive structure by removing the auxillary 'be' (were/are), here it is causing additional confusion because it's not immediately clear whtehr the writer is linking the 'pointed' to the past (they turned and they were pointed in the direction of...), or to the present (they turned and now they are pointed in the direction of...).

Was the text written in the post-Reagan, post-Thatcher era? Or more recently?


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2007-03-20 07:14:58 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Re. your questions below:

1. 'follow the money' - as I've tried to explain, by follow the money, I think that the writer is saying that the voters were/are interested mainly in money. So they voted/vote for the party who will give them the most money (e.g. by reducing taxes)

2. Re. the sequence of tenses - I think that probably the writer is writing about something that happend in the past and something was happening in the time that was the present when (s)he was writing it:

After Reagan and Thatcher, the voters turned . . . (this happened before the writing of this text)

They follow the money - they vote for politicians who will 'put more money in their pockets'. . . (this is happening now, during the era/times in which the text is being written).

I hope that helps. I can't think of a way to help you further if I don't know when the text was written.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2007-03-20 07:26:27 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Re. your question above:

I used 'young', rather than 'junior' just now because I was trying very hard to simplify the entire passage. However, 'junior' is 'junior' - in other words, although many junior staff in any institution tend to be young, I'd say that there's no guarantee that all of them will always be young. 'Junior' refers to their status within the organisation, rather than their age. So it might be rather dangerous to assume that he actually meant 'young'. My fault for confusing the issue - I'm sorry about that.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2007-03-20 07:44:55 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

Thank you! And good luck :-)
Selected response from:

Caryl Swift
Poland
Local time: 23:48
Grading comment
Thank you for your highly professional answer
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer

Advertisement


Summary of answers provided
3 +1the voters were interested in money and they were facing in the same political direction (see below)
Caryl Swift


Discussion entries: 4





  

Answers


53 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5 peer agreement (net): +1
the voters were interested in money and they were facing in the same political direction (see below)


Explanation:
The phrase you ask about:

In the era following Reagan's presidency and Thatcher's Prime Ministry, voters began to become more right-wing. Sadly, they were interested first and foremost in money and they were facing in the same political direction. In other words, when they were voting, their main consideration was money and the writer considers this to be a regrettable fact.

Possibly it's partly the 'alas' which has confused you, as far as the phrase in your question is concerned. If you take it out for a moment and add a comma, you have:

'electorates turned rightward, follow the money, pointed, in only one direction'.

However,



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2007-03-20 07:02:32 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry - I was interrupted and I clicked the mouse at the wrong moment.

However, the entire sentence is quite difficult to follow, within the context.

"To get back ahead of their followers, subsequently the senior academic faculties shoved ahead of them. As post-Reagan, post-Thatcher electorates turned rightward, follow the money pointed, alas, in only one direction. So to speak, we eat our own cooking."

Perhaps this is what the writer is saying?

Young academics became left-wing in their thinking. Senior academics felt that they were being left behind. So they became even more left-wing than their juniors. Just the same as, in the era following Reagan's presidency and Thatcher's Prime Ministry, voters began to become more right-wing. Sadly, they are interested first and foremost in money and they are facing in the same political direction.

The tenses are confusing. Above, I put everything in the past. However, here I've followed the author's sequence of tenses and left his/her words about the money in the present. I've also put the passive 'pointed' back into the present. I also think that, although it's quite permissable to reduce the passive structure by removing the auxillary 'be' (were/are), here it is causing additional confusion because it's not immediately clear whtehr the writer is linking the 'pointed' to the past (they turned and they were pointed in the direction of...), or to the present (they turned and now they are pointed in the direction of...).

Was the text written in the post-Reagan, post-Thatcher era? Or more recently?


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2007-03-20 07:14:58 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Re. your questions below:

1. 'follow the money' - as I've tried to explain, by follow the money, I think that the writer is saying that the voters were/are interested mainly in money. So they voted/vote for the party who will give them the most money (e.g. by reducing taxes)

2. Re. the sequence of tenses - I think that probably the writer is writing about something that happend in the past and something was happening in the time that was the present when (s)he was writing it:

After Reagan and Thatcher, the voters turned . . . (this happened before the writing of this text)

They follow the money - they vote for politicians who will 'put more money in their pockets'. . . (this is happening now, during the era/times in which the text is being written).

I hope that helps. I can't think of a way to help you further if I don't know when the text was written.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2007-03-20 07:26:27 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Re. your question above:

I used 'young', rather than 'junior' just now because I was trying very hard to simplify the entire passage. However, 'junior' is 'junior' - in other words, although many junior staff in any institution tend to be young, I'd say that there's no guarantee that all of them will always be young. 'Junior' refers to their status within the organisation, rather than their age. So it might be rather dangerous to assume that he actually meant 'young'. My fault for confusing the issue - I'm sorry about that.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2007-03-20 07:44:55 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

Thank you! And good luck :-)

Caryl Swift
Poland
Local time: 23:48
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in category: 4
Grading comment
Thank you for your highly professional answer
Notes to answerer
Asker: Turned is in past tense, follow is in the present tense. Or it doesn't matter? May be follow the money is an idiom? What does it mean in this case?


Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Vicky Papaprodromou
6 mins
  -> Thank you :-)

neutral  Richard Benham: There is no problem with the tenses, just a rather clumsy use of the set expression "follow the money" as the subject of "pointed".//Nothing omitted. "Pointed" is here intransitive.
1 hr
  -> I they were confusing-obviously,since the asker was confused.What's more,IMO,if the writer had not omitted the auxillary,but had used 'were'or'are',the confusion might well have been avoided//I'm afraid I'm lost.Are you saying I've misled the asker?
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)




Return to KudoZ list


KudoZ™ translation help
The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.



See also:



Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search