The article was rubbish, the author himself is a counterargument to his point. He came from a poor family, worked hard studying economic history, became a successful trader and thus extremely wealthy, yet he still proports

>Now, no matter how hard you work, how smart you are, if you come from the ‘wrong’ family you’ll probably never own property. That is feudalism. We’re going back into a world of aristocracy. Capitalism’s over.

Seems more like he thinks so much of himself that no one else could possibly do what he did.

He says “probably” so the existence of himself is not a counterargument.

If he want's to declare 'capitalism' over then he should do more then say 'probably' as that is quite a range of possibility. How 'probable' is it and what alternative system does he propose that makes it much more 'probable'.

By the reading he suggest, I has fallen in with a school of economic thinking that is basically going back to 1960 socialist school of thought that in my opinion is so much theoretical nonsense with no practical reality.