What is the point of existence? What is the goal of society? This article seems to just make a bunch of unstated assumptions about how society ought to be a singular optimizer for some kind of collective fairness or something, and derive from that that we need to dismantle capitalism. I feel like we've heard that one before, and it didn't go well. There are good arguments to be made against a financialized economy, but this isn't it. In particular, this seems to ignore hayek's arguments that you can't just spill your "ought" all over the "is" of economic nature.
I can just as easily make the opposite "unfair" argument: the market is justified insofar as more talented and beautiful people are "unfairly" allocated more reproductive opportunities. Never mind your implicit egalitarian utopianism, let's just make the race better. This also requires certain adjustments to our economic system. Don't like it? Let's argue about the actual goals then instead of leaving it implicit.
I can also make another argument, which is that things like the market are not policy choices from some kind of technocratic view from nowhere, but an ecosystem equilibrium arrived at for a confluence of reasons including naturalness, power feedback loops, and economic forces outside of any one actor's control, and that this naturalness is something we have to work with or we're stuck with far more primitive allocation (again see Hayek). Or maybe it's the triumph of one ethno-political coalition over another, wherein they promoted the kind of society in which their type of people could get advantage over everyone else. These are interesting theses, but I think the OP article isn't putting in the work.