Hold on. Take the first claim. Derek Thompson called the author of the paper who effectively said "no my paper does not support the claims made".
So either:
1. Derek Thompson is flat out lying
2. The author is wrong and confused, or
3. The critics are wrong
The critics haven't claimed to speak from the author to confirm their interpretation is correct. So to think the critics are right you have to think the convo is a lie or the author is muddled and confused.
I think it's possible that Derek Thompson is just doing the same thing he is calling out.
4. Derek Thompson interpreted a short conversation with the author the way he wanted to hear it.
The author might have said a bunch of "nuanced details" in that conversation, and he took it as: "I knew it, author thinks their claims are bogus."
If I recall, I don't remember seeing any part of their conversation quoted word for word, or even the name of the author he contacted in the article. (though I might have just missed it)
> 1. Derek Thompson is flat out lying
It's this one. The person he called made a lengthy follow up post. It's clear Thompson purposely misrepresented the conversation.
It's helpful to understand why the "abundance" movement exists. Its only purpose is to stop the Democratic Party from addressing concentrated economic power. It's funded by the concentrated economic power.
This isn't an academic debate, it's an attempt to maintain power by a discredited group of people who recently presided over the collapse of the Democratic Party and are desperately casting around for a narrative where that's not what happened.