I agree with some of this piece, but this portion is fundamentally wrong.
My point was if his products and business models were so great, he could succeed on his own, by attracting private capital.
Almost nothing actually innovative attracts private capital. The internet, for instance, never would’ve amounted to anything if we’d had to depend on private capital to fund it as the returns were 20-30 years in the future. For a private company, anything more than 2-3 quarters away is also known as “eternity.”
Private capital only attracts to what is already nearly-sure to be profitable, for the most part. It’s not some magical arbiter of what is actually a good idea, especially for society at large.
Why do people insist on believing that against all evidence?