The second journal to which I submitted my paper is well known for extremely rapid rejections, and my paper was no exception. However, unlike the editor of the previous journal, the editor of this journal gave me a reason,
not enough value added for a general economics audience, and suggested a different journal to which I might submit it.
Now, if by
value added he means interest, then he may well be correct. And certainly the normal presumption in mainstream economics is that agents are the best judges of what is good for them, so it would probably be bad form for me to insist that the general economics audience ought to care more about the foundations of microëconomics.
The editor in question is a macroëconomist, part of a minority in economics who like to think about economic aggregates. But he's one of that noble sort of macroëconomist who seek solid microfoundatons for their macroëconomics, so I'm less able to make a case that he has a bias against microëconomic theory than if he were one of those Keynesians who insist that aggregates can or must be explained immediately one in terms of others.
Anyway, although I'm unhappy with another rejection, I'm pleased that it is explained, and in terms that indicate that it is not being waved-away as foolish nonsense.