> That said, funding is decreasing and the number of people fighting for it is increasing, which makes it less valuable.

How does that make sense? If the supply is decreasing and competition for it simultaneously increasing, how does that make it less valuable (even in the cynical view of the PhD as a commodity)?

> All this aside, a PhD is worth next to nothing in my eyes. I know brilliant, capable people without them, and dull incompetent people that have earned them.

As I mentioned in my earlier comment, unless the PhD in question scammed the system (it happens), it at least proves that they have the focus to go deep. It's not a double implication though, which is what people seem to forget and then go on hyperbolic rants.