Similarly, I believe her assessment of the job creation associated with new businesses is deceiving. Her comment, "GM employed hundreds of thousands, Facebook f

Similarly, I believe her assessment of the job creation associated with new businesses is deceiving. Her comment, "GM employed hundreds of thousands, Facebook fewer than 10,000", while may be factually correct, is a function of how Facebook chooses to organize its business, rather than a true reflection of the jobs it created. GM liked to control all parts of their value chain - GM parts (I.e. Delco Electronics), GM service centers, even GM financial services. Facebook's strategy is more akin to owning the toll roads, and letting other people build the cars. Hence, Facebook doesn't provide social media management services, app development, or FB media buying - external businesses do. Therefore - comparing the two businesses directly in terms of job creation is not comparing apples to apples - there ARE hundreds of thousands of people employed in businesses directly related to Facebook's existence, they just aren't directly on the FB payroll. Granted, while I feel this specific critique doesn't necessarily significantly weakens her overall thesis, her usage of comparisons like this one makes me cautious of accepting her other examples I am less familiar with at face value.