Certainly a well written article with a certain amount in it that is worthy of disagreement. In particular I find that what he calls “radical” I call “not radical enough.” Breaking up the banks, as Obama rightly points out, sounds good but would fail to achieve desired results.
In my view the way ahead is more radical, but quietly radical. We need to be critical of how the game is played and enact common sense changes aimed at fundamentally changing the playing field. If big money is a problem (in or out of politics) we need to find ways to ensure that small business is aggressively favored over big business. If the erosion of families by corporations is a problem, we need to provide special incentives for family businesses.
In other words, we need to imagine a society we want based on what has worked in the past and create incentives to get there.
Capitalism depends on inequality for its continued existence, but the end result need not be having the state monopolize capital (as the USSR did). Capitalism is not a force always for good. Capitalism should be disfavored over the organs of a traditionalist economy.