I typically wouldn’t expect a distinguished magazine like The Atlantic to publish a superficially provocative article wrapped in a playfully hostile thesis. Yet, that’s exactly what I found here: another gratuitous attack on Homo Economicus, another regurgitation of boilerplate arguments about the menace of “maximizing shareholder value.” Alas, Atlantic, you disappoint me. Feel free to beat up the Economic Man, but understand that this blood sport started decades ago. Lenin wrote The State and the Revolution in 1917. We already know that behavioral finance has humbled Home Economicus into a diminished posture. The idea that corporations should do more than serve the economic interests of their shareholders is also very old. How does this article advance the narrative or accomplish anything besides allowing the author to promote his book?