I can't finish it. If you could point to the paragraphs you think make the strongest points, I could respond to those.

Wealthy venture capitalists "legitimize startups" by funding them, then "use their ridiculous money and connections to 'advise' and 'mentor' those deemed worthy of capital" to guarantee that the startup generates returns. Where did I see the rebuttal to this model? Oh yeah, a hundred words earlier in the same article, where the author pointed out that "the vast majority of startups fail."

The absurd and unfounded claims that Graham believes "our entire economy should run on startups," that "This ability to start a company, he assumes, is equally accessible to everyone."

The non sequitur comparison of a stupid app that attracts millions in investment to a teacher that can't pay off loans. The stupid app attracts funding because of the reasonable expectation that people will pay for stupid apps. Why not blame those customers for buying stupid apps instead of paying off other peoples' loans? Because that would be silly. Because we all spend money on our personal desires that could be spent on charity.

The familiar, piteous scenario in which the person capable of creating Candy Crush Saga gets rich and the nurse, saving lives, scrapes by. Guess what: it's really hard to create a game that millions of people will pay for. People with that skill are very rare, therefore they can charge a lot. People who can train to become good nurses are not so rare, therefore they can't charge so much. No, it's not great for the nurses, and they should switch to making blockbuster video games if they want to get rich. But is it a travesty of justice that there's only one person in the world who can make Candy Crush Saga, and dozens of capable, relatively affordable nurses in every city?