My point is how is that default advantage the rich have, a disadvantage to the poor? Unless the poor want it to be, it really can't be.
That's true in a fully transparent society. But far less so when some players can rig things in their favor by bribes or benefits-in-kind. The article is not criticizing entrepreneurs, but rentiers, people who extract economic profits rather than normal profits. Normal profits are what you have when markets fulfill their function as price discovery mechanisms. Economic profits are what you get when the dominant market players erect barriers to entry of one sort or another in order to fleece consumers.
Although I am no Marxist, you are quite wrong to think that Marx's ideas are irrelevant because he would not understand how wealth functions in the modern world. The product of work has changed, but the fundamentals of capital and production have not altered all that much. If you want proof of this, simply read (or at least browse) Adam Smith's wealth of Nations, which was written long before Marx's birth and which remains an excellent, if extremely wordy, introduction to economics. From the factors of production in a variety of different contexts, basic monetary theory, capital structures of the firm and so on, it remains surprisingly relevant (and readable) today. Marx was certainly aware of this, and while his proposed alternative to capitalism was not really workable, his analysis of capitalism's weaknesses still have considerable merit.
People can and do abuse the market system for their own gain distressingly often; I like the capitalist system, but the notion that it operates without fault is distinctly Panglossian.
That's true in a fully transparent society. But far less so when some players can rig things in their favor by bribes or benefits-in-kind. The article is not criticizing entrepreneurs, but rentiers, people who extract economic profits rather than normal profits. Normal profits are what you have when markets fulfill their function as price discovery mechanisms. Economic profits are what you get when the dominant market players erect barriers to entry of one sort or another in order to fleece consumers.
Although I am no Marxist, you are quite wrong to think that Marx's ideas are irrelevant because he would not understand how wealth functions in the modern world. The product of work has changed, but the fundamentals of capital and production have not altered all that much. If you want proof of this, simply read (or at least browse) Adam Smith's wealth of Nations, which was written long before Marx's birth and which remains an excellent, if extremely wordy, introduction to economics. From the factors of production in a variety of different contexts, basic monetary theory, capital structures of the firm and so on, it remains surprisingly relevant (and readable) today. Marx was certainly aware of this, and while his proposed alternative to capitalism was not really workable, his analysis of capitalism's weaknesses still have considerable merit.
People can and do abuse the market system for their own gain distressingly often; I like the capitalist system, but the notion that it operates without fault is distinctly Panglossian.