> bit wrong with a world in which SpaceX (a startup FWIW) can bootstrap a space programme from scratch for less money[2] than a photo uploader is apparently worth[3].
You're comparing apples and oranges:
1) what X is WORTH
2) what Y took as cash infusions
If you said "there's something wrong when a photo uploader is worth more than an orbital company", you'd be comparing apples to apples.
The mark of genius is that some people can take just a few apples and CREATE a stunning...uh...orange. OK, the analogy breaks down, but the point is: creating value is the POINT of a startup (or of any business, really), so we shouldn't be surprised that Elon Musk achieved a ton without that much cash input.
You're comparing apples and oranges:
1) what X is WORTH 2) what Y took as cash infusions
If you said "there's something wrong when a photo uploader is worth more than an orbital company", you'd be comparing apples to apples.
The mark of genius is that some people can take just a few apples and CREATE a stunning...uh...orange. OK, the analogy breaks down, but the point is: creating value is the POINT of a startup (or of any business, really), so we shouldn't be surprised that Elon Musk achieved a ton without that much cash input.