I thought it was unreasonable for him to choose to compare to the second law of thermo, which is lawful in a much stronger way (very precisely stated, understood in a quantitative way at microfoundations...) than the pattern in accelerating returns that he's pointing out. There are dozens or hundreds of comparisons he could have made, he didn't need to pick one which is so central and stable that thinking one has found a way around it has become a classic sign of being a crank. It would be more reasonable to choose to compare to some other pattern that is generally understood to be important in economics --- e.g., returns to specialization or returns to capital investment.