You point out that his argument is a rather simple one: hard work is the only path to innovation and therefore value. I totally agree with you regarding this si

You point out that his argument is a rather simple one: hard work is the only path to innovation and therefore value. I totally agree with you regarding this simplicity, but I also understand the inclination to idealize hard work. In part because, as the article emphasizes, hard work has become unfashionable and tremendously underrated. There's a reason the great innovators of the past are ripe with cliched quotes about "inspiration and perspiration." You are right that combining things in unforeseen ways is a legitimate path to innovation, but additional effort could only serve to enhance the process, don't you think? The difficulty is that what I consider "hard work" may differ from you. One can work "very hard" selling toxin-removing footpads by inventing clever stories and concocting fictitious demonstrations. They may even become the best damned footpad salesman in the northeast and others will laud them for being such a go-getter. Though they're in the business of deception, they have no problem putting food on the table. They're acting wholly rational under the rules of capitalism. Many people, even the highly-educated and successful, no longer consider these "bigger questions" in a thoughtful and introspective manner. Instead, they neutralize them with denial in the form of some unbelievably prevalent utilitarian cliches like "whatever floats your boat" or "there's a sucker born every minute." My point is that gripes about businesses not creating value can actually tap very deep philosophical nerves, but, in an almost Orwellian sense, contemplation of these things is not what modern societies consider a worthy use of time.