This:
As a nontechnical founder, I get approached to do a startup by code jocks every few days. "I have this great codebase for a project I've been working on, but I just need you to create a functional business model, marketing plan, and acquire 14,000 customers for me. I'll even offer you a generous 15% of the company, because that's the easy part". Punks.
Is a parody of this:
As a non-business oriented founder, I get approached to do a startup by MBA jocks every few days. "I have this great idea for a project I've been working on, but I just need you to create a functional design and prototype that can handle 14,000 customers per second. I'll even offer you a generous 15% of the company, because that's the easy part". Punks.
I think the message here is that both extremes are non constructive and that you need a balance between business skills and hacking skills.
It is necessary to concentrate on what you do best and get expert help for the rest. MBAs happen to be experts on something (what ever that may be). That is why they can be useful. That is why you may have jobs for them.
These business guys are the first to reject funding for your startup, if you DO try to learn everything yourself and not get external knowledge into your company. Well, this makes the post a bit pointless, indeed.
Learning programming is ultimately a matter of studying hard. It can be mastered through books, Google and relentless solitary experimentation.
Making people pay for something is a fickle social art. Who wants to get shot for failing at something so intangible?
So, I wouldn't say that the odds of success are better going from business to programming -- unless you want to run the risk of writing code that may not meet your demands, or you already know how to code and want to start in business (in which case the situation is circular). I have seen business people fail miserably at programming. I would say that the odds are the same, going either way. It takes the right kind of person to program (not just code), and the right kind of person to operate a business. It takes both of these to get both.
Because it is a (bad) habit to hugely overpay these guys.
I am reminded of some line from Paul Graham. He was talking about literature and physics professors, but it fits just as well here. Imagine this thought experiment: technical and non-technical founders were asked to switch roles and do what the other person did. The business guy will write the code, and the technical guy will figure out how to make people pay for it. The one who fails will be shot. Whom would you rather be?