I don't actually have a massive problem with his logic here ... if he was to put the blame on Windows or Google treating RAM like it's a cheap commodity.
Also, if gamers weren't overbuying RAM this whole time, realistically the small set of manufacturers would have consolidated even further through the 2010s.
See, in a free economy, we allocate scarce goods by who's willing to pay for them. If I'm willing to pay more per gig than Altman is, why shouldn't I get that gig?
You want it, Altman? So do we. You're going to have to pay more than any of us can afford in order for you to get it all. You don't want to (or can't) pay that much? Then you don't get it all.
Altman (and those like him) have already made RAM unaffordable for quite a few of us. If that's not good enough for him, frankly, not many of us care.
And worst of all, most house slaves in this country have their pensions tied up in the limited number of funds offered by their company -- most of which automatically feed into this mis-allocation. The employee is powerless to opt-out of it without sacrificing his company match and/or vestiture.
Whether he truly has these beliefs or just cynically thinks it is a good way to message, it disturbs me. It only makes it worse, seeing how quickly these new platforms can invade and contaminate the fourth estate (or the mass-market communications that have essentially subsumed that role already).
What Altman is doing is claiming that his company should satisfy demand, even at the expense of any competing demand. No, it doesn't work like that. You get what you can pay for, which depends on what your customers are willing to pay you for.