I totally agree! Also, there is plenty of variance and random luck in the fate of companies. Kodak went down, yes. But many other similar companies survived and thrived. GE once sold personal computers and 3M, magnetic tapes. But they successfully extricated themselves from these businesses when they became difficult to profit off of. While there are certainly deterministic reasons for this, one shouldn't discount the effect of luck. People forget how diversified these companies are. The positions they themselves hold, in terms of markets, are hedged- with short and long bets. Just because they are hedging their bets more by buying Dollar-Shave-Clubs and Jet.coms doesn't mean there's a bubble.

Additionally, on the tech/start-up side too, there were many shorter-lived companies that never lived up to the hype or declined from a position of unrivaled greatness (Cray?).

If there is a fatal error in the OP, it is in the certainty and needless cocksureness of McClure's predictions.

Given the huge sizes of these markets and the value of products and commodities, it is laughable to predict an imminent decline in companies that do pharmas, chemicals, industrials, medical devices, etc. based on metrics cherrypicked to create such a narrative (e.g. shift in highest-revenue companies).