[lbo-talk] sketching an "anti-economist"

[Jeffrey Fisher]

On 8/20/07, Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
>
> > On the upside, if you only want it to be online, that's relatively
> cheap.
>
> If you want to pay decent writers decently -- and you're going to have to
> to attract them -- and train and pay skilled editors to edit them, that's
> going to cost just as much running a magazine like the Nation and probably
> more.  What you save on paper you'll be spending on quality.  The
> economist is better than most magazines because they spend a lot more on
> those things.  And a well made, well-maintained website costs money too.
> As would a skilled publicist, since the whole point of such a venture
> would be to make ideas known outside the circle that already discusses it.
>
> In short, quality and influence costs money.

Oh, I agree, but as I just said in my response to Doug, better to spend your
money on the writers (and editors) than on printing and distribution. If it
costs the same, that's only going to be because you're willing to spend the
money on those people. And there is a good case for that.

j