In a college poetry class, I learned that literary analysis isn't about being "right" (what did the author actually intend to say?), but instead, being "interesting" (what's a cool way of framing this?). Any subjective interpretation is valid if it's thought-provoking.

I think that is the mental framework with ideology-saturated economic opinion pieces like this one. I don't think they care about being right. Instead, the goal is to make cool, edgy, story-book-good-vs-evil narratives independent of empirical validity ("any subjective interpretation is valid if it's thought-provoking")