I think that the big, highlighted quote a few paragraphs down--which I believe is also by the author of the article, even though they refer to themselves in the third person--seems somewhat at odds with what they say in the rest of the article. I would guess that they started writing it to make an emotional argument, then tried to back it up with logic, but along the way they lost their emotional momentum and forgot exactly what they were supposed to be arguing.

There's an interesting section further down, though:

What do we do about it? This horse is not going back in the barn. The billionaires wouldn't let it, anyway.

There's no need to get it back in the barn; the thing is lame, and only being kept propped up by a lot of (cash) injections and diversions. The facade will fall before they actually get it to work the way they pretend it works.