I thought he might be onto something interesting when he began with the growth-rate example, since that's most-obviously tied to valuation. But he skipped over valuation entirely and decided to lecture a bunch of Oxford grads about middle-school math as if he were onto something profound.

I think the way network effects and valuation creates billionaires is a more earnest defense. But that would start to lean into sociology and luck more than the hard-work he must insist upon, so I guess we sweep that under the "exponential because hard work" rug too.