It has become fashionable of late for papers in economic theory to refer to their own results as "rich".
What's wrong with this? For one thing, it's lazy. By vaguely praising one's results, one avoids the hard work of identifying their actual contribution.
Also, it's a value judgment: "my results are wonderfully complex - you will learn so much about the real world!" one imagines the author saying, excited and out of breath.
One visualizes the author cradling his newborn results, beaming with pride.
I wish we would go back to letting the reader judge the importance of our results.
- David Frankel