What he did was to take one of the arguments that is made for gifted education and to skewer it quite severely.
Ehn, I think it's a bad argument anyway. Children should be given an enriching education because it is a human right, not because they are an untapped national resource.
In general, I think it's a bad idea to hang one's hat on arguments that don't reflect one's real reasons for wanting something. Suppose, for example, a study were to show that most prodigies go on to do clever but useless things with their intellect, and don't actually benefit society at any greater rates than average-to-MG kids. If the "national resource" argument has been allowed to dominate the conversation, then that would be a justification for eliminating anything that serves PG.
