And that's okay.
All wealth is based on luck or coercion (really, just coercion). This is trivially true if you understand what wealth is: claims on the labor-time of others. Since most people aren't in the habit of freely giving away such claims in order to accumulate such claims you either need a gun or you need to stumble upon something that other people need so much they'll surrender their labor-time -- literally they're time on earth -- for. I say stumble upon because presumably when you were born you didn't "own" much of anything. (And yes, to complete the analysis, the only thing that prevents others from simply seizing whatever it is you've lucked into is somebody else has guns and stops them in return for a cut. It's coercion all the way down.)
And that's okay. While capitalism doesn't alter the essential nature of wealth -- it's not magic -- it does strongly incentivize those with wealth to try and accumulate more wealth. Capital demands to be put to work immediately, always, 24/7, to acquire more capital.
If you understand this then it should be clear the article is silly and there are and there will always be only three ways to get "rich" (which again, just means to accumulate labor claims).
1. Be lucky.
2. Get some guns, some men, and declare that you are now rich. (This is what people mean when they say sovereigns can "print money" or that sovereigns cannot default. The wealth of sovereigns is structurally inherent. As Keynes might say, a sovereign is wealth, that is, it is labor claims.)
3. Go to work for those who are already wealthy and make their lives better, that is literally make "the rich richer."
The article rambles and uses a lot of silly words to say #3. And while the author may mention society understand that whatever you want to do "for society" will require you begging for capital from rich guys like the author.
When I explain this to bold young college students who are very hesitant to go to work for the "Man" (in finance or law) it always leaves them very depressed. To lighten the mood a bit I will say this: not all capital is subject to free, anonymous exchange (the logic of the market). This is the key insight of Marx: there are relations that can produce wealth (labor claims) that do not require price signals. Which is just a fancy of way of saying you can actually make yourself quite wealthy without buying/selling anything. (Unless you're one of those insane Randroids who believe when a mother sings to her newborn baby she is somehow profiting from the "exchange.") The interesting thing about what Marxists would call such "non-reified" capital is that it can have tremendous though hard to measure effects and it can operate at global scale eg open source software and many world religions.