I'm unclear on just how bad meritocracy is; the author blames meritocracy for the recent economic mess, sure. And our meritocracy isn't "perfect"; it doesn't g

I'm unclear on just how bad meritocracy is; the author blames meritocracy for the recent economic mess, sure. And our meritocracy isn't "perfect"; it doesn't guarantee that "good" workers end up well-off, and that "bad" workers end up destitute. Everyone has a leg up (or not) from their starting circumstances, which unbalances their supposed merit. But it's really hard to see what the comparison is. Was there more upward-mobility in the old aristocratic system? Were the leaders too stupid to make gargantuan mistakes? The article certainly doesn't have any good comparison to make, and there were certainly problems in the Good Old Days (like, say, the Great Depression), too. The whole article looks like it's trying to pin blame somewhere, and it has enough facts to get a decent start, but it has too many holes to be convincing.