From there, the article gets exponentially worse by the paragraph. It's pseudo-mathematical and pseudo-philosophical nonsense.
The final claims are fundamentally sociological(!!!) But the author makes zero effort to empirically or rationally interrogate how his prescribed behavioral modifications would impact human individual behavior or human group dynamics. He fails to make any testable hypotheses.
Here's a counter-theory: the prescribed course of action would have the effect of alienating the wealthy from the poor, resulting in worse outcomes for everyone involved than a society where there is more fraternity between class categories but in which man hours are slightly less "efficiently" allocated.
I also suspect that wealthy people throw money at rationalists because "continue being On Top And In Charge because you are Better and it's morally justified as long as you Donate To Help The Poors" is far less dangerous to the status quo wealth distribution than telling every middle and upper income person "maybe you should spend a few weeks volunteering in a homeless shelter".
Even in that model though, they all average out to "mostly rational". People do too.
What about this argument requires that people be individually rational rather than on-average rational?
You're injecting some weird morality into it which just doesn't belong. Economics works not despite the fact that some are irrational, but because all the irrationality averages out.
Seen the blog? It's literally called "Less Wrong". It's not perfect, but it provides interesting insights. As such, I found that article valuable.
Money says more about the government than it says about the people who use it.