Your criticism is "out to kill" style while the fact is that article has many good points and many bad points. For example, her comment on avoiding automation i

Your criticism is "out to kill" style while the fact is that article has many good points and many bad points. For example, her comment on avoiding automation is outright wrong and uninformed. However her comment on the actual value that startups create vs value conferred by priesthood of super-rich vs value generated by non-startup folks is right on target. Her assertion that startups are becoming tool to facilitate inflated artificial returns for super rich rent-seekers doesn't look way out there. Her comparisons for current valuations with entire continent worth of countries or thousands of human lives should provoke thoughts on how the system is getting rigged by super rich crowd in the name of "risk taking" but without actually having to deliver proportional value to society. Even with successful exists most startups eventually get killed anyway in their new corporate owners destroying pretty much all of the supposedly created massive valuations. The only net outcome of even successful startups is super rich getting more richer along with few dudes tagging along for the ride. However I think her attacks on pg is off mark, uncivilized and even completely wrong, again in "out to kill" style just like your critic as opposed to extracting and isolating food for thought. PG had lots of good points to make his case that startups do generate wealth as opposed to take away wealth from poor but he then went off road to assert that limitless inequality is generated solely because of wealth creation which runs counter to pretty much economic data points.