To my understanding the article clearly does not question the academic research itself but the way the results are published and who benefits from (the money returned by) such publications. Or am I misreading it?
Why that particular combination? You could just as easily compare private spending and public benefits, and it would make about as much sense.
Maybe better to include both public and private costs and benefits?
Publishers are effectively stealing money from taxpayers. Research benefits the whole world but Elsevier's profits only benefit its shareholders. Every million sent to Wall Street funds could be used to start a project that might end up saving lives.