Is this article missing a page? It ends without saying anything. It appears to be built around a single fact and extending that fact outward without examining i

Is this article missing a page? It ends without saying anything. It appears to be built around a single fact and extending that fact outward without examining its implications or methods of implementation: that is, just because capitalism doesn't currently exploit the third world in a negative sense says nothing about the potentiality for it to. Instead, the article seems to use this one data point as a smug shield against criticism. A more robust and therefore interesting article would have taken the criticisms (the ways in which capitalism is said to exploit the poor) point by point and explain how it would ultimately be avoided in even a baseline, pragmatic capitalist influence on struggling third world economies. This article convinces no one and only makes already in-the-tank capitalist apologists feel validated. Is there a word for that?