FLG Doesn't Understand

...why the Economist hired Matt Steinglas. He's so focused on the present and proximate, that his analysis is invariably God awful. In fact, I've never read something by him that I didn't think could be intellectually eviscerated by a drunken baboon, as long as their frame of analysis included something more than 15 minutes in the future. On economic questions everything he writes subtracts for the sum of human knowledge. But, as Matt Ygelsias points out, even on other issues Steinglass' overemphasis on the proximate and present renders his analysis completely ridiculous.

Does anybody at The Economist actually read his stuff? If so, has that person thought of replacing him with a monkey and a bottle of bourbon? It'd be a vast improvement.