This article is completely filled with assumptions that are utterly faulty, but mostly for subtle reasons.
Some of them are widely held misconceptions; some of them are fairly juvenile. (For example, [1].)
And that's why we cannot fix the situation. If your analysis of what's currently wrong is bad, you certainly aren't going to come up with something better.
There is hope, but only in the very long term. We need better people in academic philosophy departments. Their ideas are the top of the intellectual food pyramid and eventually trickle down to everyone.
[1] A common mistake is to make the following equivocation which I will quote: "Business at large, 'capitalism',...". No, business != capitalism. Or if you really want to define capitalism that way, your model is insufficient detailed to capture important distinctions. For instance, think about big business under fascist ideology (such as Nazism), which is fully integrated and controlled by the government, though nominally held privately. Then think about the opposite: When all people are treated _completely_ equally by the government, which means that no business can get any sort of special advantage _at all_. In one of these situations, the economy will steadily decline into nothing. In the other, you have the best possible condition for economic growth. Our current system is highly mixed; literally, a mix of poison and medicine. How would the OP analyze this situation, and in which direction would he advocate going? He certainly wouldn't take a principled approach, because his model is insufficiently detailed to capture this issue.