There’s some good insight in this article. There’s also a little bit of baby-with-bathwater. The author gives a passing, obligatory nod to “still promoting innovation and competition”, but seems to think that the idea of a limited liability business is a bad one. Here’s a clue: there is no way I’d be in business for myself, “innovating” new formats of programmer education if incorporation wasn’t possible. The ability to protect your family from total destitution if your business idea goes belly-up is fundamental to innovation and competition, because otherwise nobody would dare to start a new business.
I agree 100% with the author’s zeroing-in on “get rich quick” schemes. The dream of “sudden wealth someday” hobbles people from attaining a sustainable lifestyle almost as much as the attitude of “everyone else lives on credit and loans so it must be OK”.
But ultimately the author’s prescription, a vague hand-wave about introspection as a society, is disappointing. Yes, as a matter of policy we need to stop despising the poor, and stop letting the wealthy play by a different set of rules. But I think part of that is empowering the poor and the middle class to play by the same set of rules the rich do. And a good start is to encourage people to start their own businesses. There’s nothing wrong with building wealth while insulating your family from disaster, which is what an incorporated business lets you do. There’s nothing wrong with risking the bank’s money instead of your own, which is what business loans are all about. Hell that’s why we have banks.