6 ms·

I can see that you didn’t read the article.

• aeternum 5y ago
  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.
  • thundergolfer 5y ago
    He says “probably” so the existence of himself is not a counterargument.
    • panick21_ 5y ago
      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.