That feels completely like an excuse used after the fact to justify keeping Boeing around rather than a principled stance, considering that NASA and Congress were pretty set on just giving Boeing the sole source contract for crew transport to the station.
It's pretty well documented by Lori Garver, one of the people involved in pushing Commercial Crew, how strong the opposition was from both NASA and Congress.
For a while it was like that, but after the ex-Honeywell CEO was replaced, and with New Glenn flight hardware becoming increasingly more common to see being moved around and tested, they do seem to be approaching being a serious space company.
Blue Origin is older than SpaceX, and is proof that infinite capital guarantees absolutely nothing. Bezos has been among the world's wealthiest men for far, far longer than Musk's entry into that group. Let me paraphrase an excellent comment I saw on Reddit, in response to one of the usual lies about how the only reason SpaceX is a decade ahead of the rest of the world is that it got zillions in subsidies from the US government:
>If large amounts of funding is the only thing required to succeed, Blue Origin would now have a nuclear-powered spacecraft orbiting Pluto.
Better for whom? Better for the involved Congresscritters, lobbyists, and Boeing? For all Bezos' wealth, I suspect he's behind the curve on his lobbying game.
It's pretty well documented by Lori Garver, one of the people involved in pushing Commercial Crew, how strong the opposition was from both NASA and Congress.