Waitress turned self-appointed wealth expert Suze Orman is a terrible person, according to Slate's Big Money. That's because this evil financial sorceress recommends an investing strategy called "dollar-cost averaging." What?

There are many reasons to hate Orman, from her pitiable love of animal prints to her grating voice. The piece mentions her "toothy, cougar-like visage," which is funny! And it criticizes her loopy belief that money problems have to do with "emotional roadblocks" rather than, say, running out of money.

But dollar-cost averaging — steadily investing in the stock market over time as prices rise and fall — is generally regarded as better than the alternative, which is trying to time the market. The Big Money piece calls it "throwing good money after bad," which is just silly.

Indeed, here's Slate on the subject of dollar-cost averaging last fall:

Instead, by making regular, systematic investments throughout the year, you get the benefit of "dollar cost averaging," and don't have to worry about timing the market. Contrarian thinking today is that the market meltdown is a wonderful opportunity because stocks are ‘on sale'. If you are making regular 401(k) contributions, you are buying more shares than you could've bought previously.

Oh, sorry, that's not exactly Slate — that's BizBox by Slate, a Special Promotion by Open from American Express on Slate. An advertorial, in short.

So let's get this straight: Slate got paid by American Express to give its readers financial advice that it later badmouthed. Is that the publication's real beef with Suze Orman that it doesn't like the competition?