This seems to be the point of your post. But you make the same mistake you complain about in Holly’s post.
First, most of the great tech companies of the 20th century were based on taxpayer funded research (internet, Xerox PARC).
Second, the great early tech companies developed in garages, not because of VC money. VC money followed tech innovation, looking for opportunities to make money.
Third, your measure of value (people pay for something they like) is incredibly narrow in its focus. Economics includes all kinds of goods that have value for which the market does not account (clean environment, public health and safety, protection against foreign invasion, infrastructure, educating a skilled work force). We call this the commons and we fund it with taxes because without it, no one has much of a life).
Fourth, there is a huge difference between manufactured products that have increased productivity (computers, printers and peripherals, silicon chips), information services that improved consumer and business efficiency (Google) and internet-based digital products and services which do not increase the GDP. It’s not just Candy Crush. It’s pretty much all of the current darlings of the sharing economy.
Here’s my take on these media darlings:
UBER: a few guys get rich with their idea; drivers wear out their own cars, pay their own gas and insurance to make $13 an hour; and, full time taxi cab drivers are making less money.
AIRBnB: a few guys get rich with their idea; renters and homeowners make some extra money (good) while taking on risks (fire, theft, accidents, lawsuits); the hotel industry loses profits and in turn cut back on staff.
EBAY: a few guys get rich with their idea; flea marketers have a better way to sell the stuff they find in garage sales; the money comes from shoppers looking for bargains, which means less revenue for traditional stores.
AMAZON: basically the same as EBAY, except flea marketers are replaced by businesses who are forced to sell at greater discounts.
GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, TWITTER, PINTEREST, INSTAGRAM, etc: a few guys get rich with their idea; advertising revenue flows to these social media sites instead of traditional media companies (print, radio and TV); less interest in great creative for ads (data driven marketing is the new thing), so less revenue for creatives, ad agencies, production companies, etc.
Even Forbes provides a similar analysis of the macroeconomic effects of the sharing economy arguing that Uber will lower GDP.
People are wasting all their time and attention on winning the tech lottery, instead of focusing on the important issues of how to grow the economy and create more good paying jobs.