PG is defining "rich kids" as the spawn on the 1% and is arguing that these kids don't have any significant advantages over more normal people when it comes to accessing funding from VCs etc and that such a belief is harmful.
Basically that there is a point of diminishing returns to being "rich" and that it's probably lower than you think.
Matthew is arguing that being in crushing poverty is probably a barrier to building a successful startup.
PG is defining "rich kids" as the spawn on the 1% and is arguing that these kids don't have any significant advantages over more normal people when it comes to accessing funding from VCs etc and that such a belief is harmful.
Basically that there is a point of diminishing returns to being "rich" and that it's probably lower than you think.
Matthew is arguing that being in crushing poverty is probably a barrier to building a successful startup.
Both views can be basically correct.