I read it more like he's considering what to throw his money at, and it sounds like he wants to throw his money at companies that make good new things.
But then he doesn't really define good, makes an odd comparison to a now acclaimed pulp fiction author and then says we can only really know what is good after the fact.
Leaning on "new" so hard as part of the "good" just reduces to, "Make new-new things that aren't by every objective measure bad and see if it works out in hindsight".
It would be helpful if we understood what good and bad mean to him.
His essay from 2008[0] is just as nebulous. When you have such a hand-wavy definition of such an important term, it ultimately means you can wield your narrative to fit any conclusion you want.
With his multiple endorsements of MAGA I fear his definition of "good" is severley warped. Is ensuring the poor don't die of preventable diseases good? Not to this guy.
Yeah, this feels like an attempt to (partially preemptively?) rehabilitate his image/legacy more than anything. If he makes a blog saying how important it is to "make good new things", then surely everything he makes is a good new thing! No need to look further to see what he actually supports.
