This is definitely not the right analogy because one is a matter of risk, the other a matter of integrity.

New business ventures are inherently risky.

Research is inherently risky, and we would expect 90% to 'fail' but for 90% of papers to be rubbish would be a matter of 'extreme corruption' along the lines of 90% of judges taking bribes etc..

"I don't see a better system."

Well, one thing we could do is punish people for knowingly publishing crap results, i.e. have a 'secondary review system' that investigates 'why' results were rubbish, and if there was malfeasance, well, put in place some kind of retribution.

We could also change our tune with respect to expectations, and come to 'expect' that the majority of research should publish then 'null' result and that should just be it.