Are you challenging the contention and the reasons cited?
There is no argument in the article that this is good or desirable. Many things in nature are terrible and destructive. But doesn't it help if we understand them? What point are you trying to make?
That there is a titanic economic incentive to produce this kind of observation in order to create justifications for the economic order, that anyone who does so with skill will be rewarded, and that drawing these conclusions serves the purposes of suppressing cultural developments rather than being unassailable, spiritual commitment to The Clear Correctness and Fairness of Our Objectivity
You're misreading the article if you think he's trying to create justifications for the economic order. What he's doing is arguing that the rewards of those at the top are a byproduct of a defect in competitive processes that make them disproportionately large relative to merit for the elite minority.
I also believe your belief that society rewards those who justify elitism is very misguided. Virtue signalling through displays of altruistic self-sacrifice and support for the underdog rules the day. Playing that game is incredibly rewarding for social status.
You are correct and I made a similar argument above for not passively accepting the existence of a natural phenomenon as a justification for The Way Things Are in society, but don't confuse specificity with rigor. Imperfect generalities often reflect partial truths, and to focus only on the inaccuracies therein is a kind of philosophic myopia.
That argument is the weakest of all sauces. Do you actually have any real criticisms of the theory itself, or are you just here to sling unjustified and misjudged mud at those discussing it?
There is no argument in the article that this is good or desirable. Many things in nature are terrible and destructive. But doesn't it help if we understand them? What point are you trying to make?