Another take on the WSJ review

Jim really knows how to touch a nerve! A couple of weeks ago the Washington Post gave us a whine from the left (what will GA do for the hungry?). Now the WSJ gives us a whine from the right, ridiculing Jim for disparaging “ratty rental planes” and wanting to fly “cosseted in … the sort of luxury touches one would expect in a Lexus”.

Is this really the WSJ criticizing a “rich man’s hobby”? Reading further, the real source of their irritation becomes apparent: “The airlines have found over the years that passengers value two things above all: price and frequency… And that is what they have delivered. In other words, markets work.”

And now a passenger (and a democrat!) has the presumption to question this deregulated system, and even to intrude into the aerial province of the rich. Least anyone miss that point, the article appears directly over an add for NextJets.

Remember Marie Antoinette’s aristocratic whine “let them eat cake”, and Robert Green’s ridicule of the “upstart crow”. This review is a real honor, Jim. You’ve made it!

Jim really knows how to touch a nerve! A couple of weeks ago the Washington Post gave us a whine from the left (what will GA do for the hungry?). Now the WSJ gives us a whine from the right, ridiculing Jim for disparaging “ratty rental planes” and wanting to fly “cosseted in … the sort of luxury touches one would expect in a Lexus”.

Is this really the WSJ criticizing a “rich man’s hobby”? Reading further, the real source of their irritation becomes apparent: “The airlines have found over the years that passengers value two things above all: price and frequency… And that is what they have delivered. In other words, markets work.”

And now a passenger (and a democrat!) has the presumption to question this deregulated system, and even to intrude into the aerial province of the rich. Least anyone miss that point, the article appears directly over an add for NextJets.

Remember Marie Antoinette’s aristocratic whine “let them eat cake”, and Robert Green’s ridicule of the “upstart crow”. This review is a real honor, Jim. You’ve made it!

I am surprised that the WSJ does not LOVE Free Flight. After all, Jim’s book explores the possibility that entrepreneurs using new technology will soon create a substantial new mass market - point-to-point air taxi service - right under the noses of the entrenched players. I am a Silicon Valley based start-up junkie (my wife keeps telling me to ‘get a job’ :>) and the story certainly gets my capitalistic juices flowing.

George

I am surprised that the WSJ does not LOVE Free Flight. After all, Jim’s book explores the possibility that entrepreneurs using new technology will soon create a substantial new mass market

That’s the point – and is why I keep calling WSJ “Stalinist”! Their natural tendency would be to love this argument. But since, axiomatically, I belong to the class of people with whom they disagree (largely because I started ridiculing Bob Bartley, their chief commissar, in articles 20 years ago), they had to find a way to put this down. If it had been by George Gilder, they would have done a twenty part series exploring its wonders!

God knows:

  1. I love your book and told my 900,000 capitalist-loving subscribers just that.

  2. The WSJ reviewer was puny and petty.

But this Stalinist nonsense . . . really, Jim. That God for the WSJ!

The WSJ reaches 1.7 million readers. The combined circulation/readership of the lib-left cabal . . . the NYT, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, Time, Newsweek, Washington Post . . . is about, oh, 100 million. Their editorial voice is uniform when it comes to the environment, any matter of political correctness, etc. For example, have you seen any skepticism at all on the trendy notion that carbon dioxide is a pollutant? God help you if you deviate from that canon. So thank God for the WSJ, a cheapshot book review notwithstanding.

I am surprised that the WSJ does not LOVE Free Flight. After all, Jim’s book explores the possibility that entrepreneurs using new technology will soon create a substantial new mass market

That’s the point – and is why I keep calling WSJ “Stalinist”! Their natural tendency would be to love this argument. But since, axiomatically, I belong to the class of people with whom they disagree (largely because I started ridiculing Bob Bartley, their chief commissar, in articles 20 years ago), they had to find a way to put this down. If it had been by George Gilder, they would have done a twenty part series exploring its wonders!

Rich

God knows that if I were to be blessed with another child, I would have to name it “Forbes Karlgaard Fallows,” in gratitude to you and your publication…

So it’s probably good for all conspiracy-theory folk to see that there’s actually an issue where you and I disagree!

(And still I say: AT LEAST the NYT publishes Safire, while the WSJ publishes…?)

Best wishes (and again thanks!), jf

God knows:

  1. I love your book and told my 900,000 capitalist-loving subscribers just that.
  1. The WSJ reviewer was puny and petty.

But this Stalinist nonsense . . . really, Jim. That God for the WSJ!

The WSJ reaches 1.7 million readers. The combined circulation/readership of the lib-left cabal . . . the NYT, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, Time, Newsweek, Washington Post . . . is about, oh, 100 million. Their editorial voice is uniform when it comes to the environment, any matter of political correctness, etc. For example, have you seen any skepticism at all on the trendy notion that carbon dioxide is a pollutant? God help you if you deviate from that canon. So thank God for the WSJ, a cheapshot book review notwithstanding.

I am surprised that the WSJ does not LOVE Free Flight. After all, Jim’s book explores the possibility that entrepreneurs using new technology will soon create a substantial new mass market

That’s the point – and is why I keep calling WSJ “Stalinist”! Their natural tendency would be to love this argument. But since, axiomatically, I belong to the class of people with whom they disagree (largely because I started ridiculing Bob Bartley, their chief commissar, in articles 20 years ago), they had to find a way to put this down. If it had been by George Gilder, they would have done a twenty part series exploring its wonders!

. . . Al Hunt!

Rich

God knows that if I were to be blessed with another child, I would have to name it “Forbes Karlgaard Fallows,” in gratitude to you and your publication…

So it’s probably good for all conspiracy-theory folk to see that there’s actually an issue where you and I disagree!

(And still I say: AT LEAST the NYT publishes Safire, while the WSJ publishes…?)

Best wishes (and again thanks!), jf

God knows:

  1. I love your book and told my 900,000 capitalist-loving subscribers just that.
  1. The WSJ reviewer was puny and petty.

But this Stalinist nonsense . . . really, Jim. That God for the WSJ!

The WSJ reaches 1.7 million readers. The combined circulation/readership of the lib-left cabal . . . the NYT, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, Time, Newsweek, Washington Post . . . is about, oh, 100 million. Their editorial voice is uniform when it comes to the environment, any matter of political correctness, etc. For example, have you seen any skepticism at all on the trendy notion that carbon dioxide is a pollutant? God help you if you deviate from that canon. So thank God for the WSJ, a cheapshot book review notwithstanding.

I am surprised that the WSJ does not LOVE Free Flight. After all, Jim’s book explores the possibility that entrepreneurs using new technology will soon create a substantial new mass market

That’s the point – and is why I keep calling WSJ “Stalinist”! Their natural tendency would be to love this argument. But since, axiomatically, I belong to the class of people with whom they disagree (largely because I started ridiculing Bob Bartley, their chief commissar, in articles 20 years ago), they had to find a way to put this down. If it had been by George Gilder, they would have done a twenty part series exploring its wonders!

Well, there’s Al Hunt. But he may not count since he has never been right about anything and seems to be carried primarily for his entertainment value.

Still loved the book.

Lee

Rich

God knows that if I were to be blessed with another child, I would have to name it “Forbes Karlgaard Fallows,” in gratitude to you and your publication…

So it’s probably good for all conspiracy-theory folk to see that there’s actually an issue where you and I disagree!

(And still I say: AT LEAST the NYT publishes Safire, while the WSJ publishes…?)

Best wishes (and again thanks!), jf

God knows:

  1. I love your book and told my 900,000 capitalist-loving subscribers just that.
  1. The WSJ reviewer was puny and petty.

But this Stalinist nonsense . . . really, Jim. That God for the WSJ!

The WSJ reaches 1.7 million readers. The combined circulation/readership of the lib-left cabal . . . the NYT, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, Time, Newsweek, Washington Post . . . is about, oh, 100 million. Their editorial voice is uniform when it comes to the environment, any matter of political correctness, etc. For example, have you seen any skepticism at all on the trendy notion that carbon dioxide is a pollutant? God help you if you deviate from that canon. So thank God for the WSJ, a cheapshot book review notwithstanding.

I am surprised that the WSJ does not LOVE Free Flight. After all, Jim’s book explores the possibility that entrepreneurs using new technology will soon create a substantial new mass market

That’s the point – and is why I keep calling WSJ “Stalinist”! Their natural tendency would be to love this argument. But since, axiomatically, I belong to the class of people with whom they disagree (largely because I started ridiculing Bob Bartley, their chief commissar, in articles 20 years ago), they had to find a way to put this down. If it had been by George Gilder, they would have done a twenty part series exploring its wonders!

. . . Al Hunt!

Here, Here for the last couple of exchanges between Jim and Rich! I love it!

Pete

. . . Al Hunt!