Does anyone have a critique of this, besides just general hostility? The link to the original paper is at the bottom.
[WS:] I do not have any general hostility toward it, since I am not sure what the argument is. The only logical conclusion that seems to follow is that different income distributions can be mathematically modeled. In other words, the argument seems to state the obvious by using obscure jargon. This does not strike me as particularly enlightening, useful or even innovative - just a bunch of nerds showing off how smart they are. Big fucking deal.
If however, they want to argue that this distribution is "natural" as the title seems to suggest - they would need to explain that humans and material particles are pretty much the same in terms of their interaction with the environment - something that sounds like utter bullshit that only a hack propagandist or someone with acute autism can maintain.
Wojtek