Yes, I'm aware that I'm commenting this on HN.
May not be quicker, but definitely easier for the less-skilled to pull off.
One requires a demolition mindset, the other an engineering mindset.
In some capitalist cultures there has been a tendency to value disruption as if it was the thing that added value, just because it was a noticeable component of a few high-profile bonanzas.
It's like a prevailing superstition can take hold, and a belief spreads where "if it's not disruptive, it can't be good".
The less-recognized builders who don't divert energy to disruption do have to operate with much less visibility, since there's not some established structure crumbling (usually under its own weight) that looks like a result of their efforts.
The engineering-focused creative builder that can make something out of nothing, without having to tear down anything at all, ended up hopelessly outnumbered by weaker-performing substitutes having far-less-unique qualities.
Imagine what it would be like if something capable of applying that kind of leverage to resources had access to scaling capital.
Among some classes of performers, anybody can build a viable business if they started with $1 Million, and barring undue disaster, all will grow & prosper.
Even without any failures, each one will obviously have differing performance.
I guess you could say that one who ends up with a $1 Billion operation would be so rare, might as well be a unicorn.
That's about a 1000x return one way or another.
How does that compare to someone who can build anything viable at all from basically nothing to start with?
Makes 1000x look like a small number.