Consequently, the entire discussion based on what would happen if all journals forced all papers through the no revisions process is misguided; it is like saying that Taco Bell should not exist because it would be a bad thing if Taco Bell were the only restaurant.
This is Economic Inquiry editor R. Preston McAfee commenting on his "No revisions" option for authors who submit to EI. The idea is that you submit the paper and get an acceptance or rejection with no possibility of a "revise and resubmit." As he emphasizes, this is an option.
The whole 8-page article, "Edifying Editing," is worth reading. It illustrates one of the things I love most about many economists, whether or not they agree with me about schools of thought, conclusions, policy issues, or whatever: the willingness of many of them to think about what they do and not just to repeat patterns.
One thing I learned from it, and I admit that it should have been obvious to me a priori: I always make my deadlines as a referee but often just barely. I would be much more valuable to an editor and, therefore, would have more effect, if I refereed within a few days of receiving a paper rather than with a few months. And that's usually easy to do, but the deadline I'm given goes on my calendar and becomes a goal.