Right, he should have phrased this differently, but everyone is ignoring that he explicitly says "from a global allocation perspective" immediately before it, making it clear the "terrible" part is from a very narrow perspective, not as s general rule.

Yeah, this. "Terrible" implies a framework of better and worse, and his axes don't align with everyone else's.

And even in economic terms... the way free markets work is that we let dollars decide which resources go where. That's the "optimal" distribution of scarce resources - they go wherever most values them. So his distribution is in fact economically sub-optimal. I value having some RAM more than he values having one more increment of RAM, so I get some and he doesn't.

He doesn't like it? Not my problem. Not economic theory's problem, either.

The "terrible" is a misleading quote of him making the assertion that it’s suboptimal in economic terms, it's not okay to chop up what he said and act like he said something different.