Acting on curiosity generates knowledge. At least if you’re vaguely intelligent, resourceful and decent at critical thinking. And many others here have correctly pointed out how knowledge spurs curiosity. The unfortunate inference of this piece is that independent of curiosity, with some knowledge or even some thought on the matter, it would be clear that the piece would not have been worth writing.
The jabs at academia for not being curious lack substance. Don’t mistake a relative deprioritization of financial interests for apparent inaction- often they’re just motivated to generate new knowledge and understanding that doesn’t relate to the marketplace or the financial system that stems from that. It’s a parallel reality that I imagine would be hard to understand for someone whose life is centred on financial wealth. That’s not a deep criticism of the author and his values, rather a criticism of the analysis presented above.