I think the fundamental disgreement is not about talent, but that you may not be a book's ideal reader, other people will like something that you do not.
You don't seem to understand that the argument that you are defending is nothing but strawmen. It assumes the following:
that there is no such thing as a deeply flawed book, that all books are going to have an ideal reader. This is not the case. There are a lot of unpublished books out there that are just straight bad. Google makinglight's slushkiller and see that whether or not the book should be published is only a question for the top 10% of books out there. Objectively bad books exist. All books could be bestsellers, the only difference is marketting. Wrong.
second assumption: Rewriting wastes the author's time. Bullshit. No matter how good your first draft is, a rewrite will make it better. If you're talking about the 99.97% of the population that exists within 3 standard deviations of normal talent distribution. Those people who exist outside of the SD do not need to be told what they can or cannot do.
People will buy shit. And they will keep buying shit, regardless of whether or not it is shit.
????
Profit a million bucks.
That is literally his argument. He only puts out a book a year, so no, he's not playing the quantity game. He's been trying to break the system since 2011. That's coming up for years. If he hasn't made his million dollars, and he's the one coming up with this stupid idea that says that people do not care whether or not they are reading something that entertains them. You're defending a guy that thinks it will cost nothing at all for him to find a million people who just want to buy the tin can the soup came in. That's not a straw man, that's his argument.
While it's true that a fool and his money are soon parted, it is not true that a fool will be able to part a sensible person with their money more than once.