Highly suspicious, since the editors there asked me to write an 1800 word op-ed (you read the number right) on October 27th. I gave it to them on deadline, November 7th, for publication on Black Friday, November 25th. I didn’t hear a word from them for 12 days, and then it was, well, gee, we want 900 words, and the economic argument is, uh, disturbing. I was pissed, and let the person I was dealing with know it–his name is Ryan Sager–much to the dismay of all concerned, including myself.
I met the next deadline, November 21st, with a 900-word version, and he rejected it the next day. Actually, he told the publicity manager at the press that it wasn’t suitable–he never got around to telling me.
Now what makes this review so interesting is the zeroing in on the question of investment. If my answer to the question is right, everything the WSJ stands for, a least on the editorial pages, becomes stand-up material, as in “What, you think these capitalists are necessary, you think an unequal distribution of income is an incentive to investment–you still think private investment drives growth? What, are you crazy?”
But notice, again, that this emphasis on investment is not a right-wing phenomenon. This reviewer is the economics editor at The Atlantic, not exactly the harbor for all those ex-Trots once built by neo-conservatism.
Anyway, here’s the link: