As somebody else has remarked, your perception is somewhat skewed by survivorship bias: yes, it seems that these cost overruns are due to a lack of “risk of failure”, but one should really compare it to the overall manner by which capital is allocated and products delivered to market, meaning that one should not be blind to all the startups that get funded and fail to deliver. I'm not saying the two systems are equivalent, but this is the information you must keep in mind to compare them fairly.