I disagree on two levels. First, by that argument every battle is a losing one against Honda. They are the biggest and best funded team on the grid, bar none. They can, and have, out spend any one at any time in any area. If that is the case, why should anyone show up?
Second, just because Honda can outspend the competition does not mean that their solution will be the best; nor does it mean that they will implement the right solution in the best way. Smaller, less well funded team can achieve great results by being forced to think of a problem in a different way because of their reduced budget. Ironically, aerodynamics - the very thing being argued against - is the perfect example of this.
Reading between the lines, Honda and Ducati were actually experiencing very similar problems: brutal power delivery, difficult to control motorcycle, reduced feel, etc. Take away Marquez and the Repsol team was doing pretty dismally.... for Repsol at least. Much like Ducati. Honda approached the problem by throwing a lot of money on engine management, traction control, chassis construction and geometry. It was not uncommon for them to show up with enough parts to build three completely different bikes for their riders to test on a race weekend. Without the budget to do that, Gigi had Ducati take a different approach: wings.
All these years later it seems like a simple thing but when Ducati first took the field they were the absolute laughing stock of GP. Now every team has followed their lead and there is a lot of evidence that they provide a tangible benefit to the stability and handling of the bikes that's not just in the riders' heads (as was sometimes stated).
Perhaps the point isn't so much that Ducati can outspend Honda, but the fact that Ducati has a backer who also has deep pockets and can therefore spend sufficient money to come up with a competitive solution regardless of how much money Honda throws at a problem. They have already shown that their creativity can fundamentally change the direction of MotoGP.
