I think he's out to get attention, and one way to do that is to be controversial, something which he seems to have honed to a fine art. I think he must be bright to have gotten so good at it, but it does not strike me as being all that productive, either.
With all due respect, I think that is just a strange conspiratorial type of thinking.
Did he basically find himself to the top, being a writer for HBR by just being purposely controversial?
Maybe it is a strategy, but it's clearly not the end goal. It is maybe just a means to an end, that is conceivable (although unlikely, in my view).
I think the way to go in instances like these is just to engage specifically only on the points presented by the author -- not raise suspicions about their motives. Incidentally I think in this case the evidence points to the contrary: I think his motives are good. I actually happen to be concerned about capitalism in much a way Umair is, and I can promise you that I have good motives: I want my childhood friends (who I know are not doing well, they're living in poverty) to be doing well, in many respects I see them as victims of the current system. If I were to write a long piece of political commentary, criticizing the current system, I know that it would hurt me to be labeled as an "attention-seeker". I would, on the other hand, welcome any and all responses that go directly at my arguments.
