(To put some words in the commenter's mouth) he's saying that a 90% cut in launch costs would be bigger than Apollo. In those terms, it's a defensible argument.
I think it might be defensible, but I'm not sure it's correct. The question isn't really "is it easier to put a man on the Moon today than it is build a reusable rocket which cuts cost by 90% today", it's "was it easier to put a man on the moon in 1960 than it is to build a reusable rocket which cuts costs by 90% today".
The Apollo program was conceived in 1960, before either the suborbital flight of John Glenn or the earlier orbital flight of Yuri Gagarin. Before we had successfully built and tested a rocket capable of putting a single man in space, we started a space program with the goal of putting a man on the Moon, which would in the end involve launching a three-man spacecraft, with sufficient fuel to carry it to the Moon, manually reconfiguring it in flight, flying it for three days through the void, entering orbit around the Moon, detaching a portion of the spacecraft to land upon the Moon under manual controls, bouncing around the Moon in space suits, goddamn driving around the Moon in little cars (later missions), flying the space craft back into lunar orbit, rendezvousing with the orbiting spacecraft and manually re-docking, flying the ship back three days to Earth, and re-entering the Earth's atmosphere and landing safely.
And they did it in under 10 years. SpaceX turns 12 this year.
