There is a fundamental flaw in the author's analysis. The $2T invested in stocks is arbitrage--the investor believes that a return will be gained by the movement of a price of the underlying stock. That $2T hasn't gone away, and the underlying "asset" is still very liquid because there is a market. i.e. $2T today, $2.00001T or $1.9999T tomorrow.
The purchase of a stock on the open market--the exchange of currency for the stock asset--may result in a change in the company's balance sheet, or it may not. Buying $10k of IBM does not directly put $10k into IBM's coffers--but the purchase may result in a slightly higher or lower market price which results in a slightly different balance sheet.
Spending money on technology development and buying stocks on the open market are two very different things. VC's take high risk in the direct purchase of stock from a small business to help them develop technology. But those assets are not liquid, the chance of a ROI is quite small, and there are very few of these types of investors that are able to invest in this fashion. Most "stock investors" are either not qualified or don't have the stomach for this type of investing.
"I think if you look at what matters to customers, what they care they care a lot about what the operational performance is, you know, what the availability is, what the durability is, what the latency and throughput is of of the various services. And I think we have a pretty significant advantage in that area." also "And, yeah, you could just you just look at what's happened the last couple months. You can just see kind of adventures at some of these players almost every month. And so very big difference, I think, in security."