[Mysterise]

Not a fan of "this"-like comments, but I find your analogy very elegant in explaining the impact of money.

The concept of money mapping 1:1 to value/produced utility (note that I haven't defined what a unit of this is) is a difficult concept to grasp.

It's very common for people to trivialise money as a printed piece of paper and miss the higher level value as a currency that "benchmarks" the value of one's impact to another.

Society pedestalizes healthcare workers for their immediate, physical and observable impact to the lives of individuals; and it is understandably justified. However, this often raises questions to why nurses only make marginally above average salaries. Unfortunately the semantics of the supply-vs-demand economy is often lost here - any individual nurse is generally not difficult to replace should they leave (of course, depending on the market). On the other end of the spectrum, people making significantly above the market financial trading are commonly seen as negative-value producers when most do generate a significant amount of positive value, simply because it's hard to reason with a non-physical form of value. (I don't work in a field related to financial trading)

It's unsurprising why there's communities formed to demonise the concept of currency, trade and markets; and why some of them advance further and push for the breakdown of modern society.

While I don't mean to be pushing the message that "Capitalism is perfect and the utopia of reality" - I can't imagine alternative systems not involving a free market, that would achieve similar or better levels of quality of life and advancement in society (at least in current modern? times), while balancing around the imperfections of humans.

[danparsonson]

> people making significantly above the market financial trading are commonly seen as negative-value producers when most do generate a significant amount of positive value

They generate a significant amount of money - not value, money. They concentrate wealth in the hands of those who can afford to pay them to do it, a process which begets itself. That's why traders are commonly seen as negative-value producers by society as a whole - they contribute to decreased social equality.

Your argument here is circular - financial traders can only be said to be generating value if you assume that money and value are in some way equivalent. The former doesn't prove the latter.

As for nurses - if they're so easily replaced, why are so many rich societies dependent on immigrant health workers? And I'm sure you're not telling me that, if you were dying, you'd rather be attended by a stockbroker? Or could it be that "value" is a nebulous concept that is highly situational and varies from person to person?

Capitalism is very successful in certain arenas but it doesn't universally improve quality of life, and if you want an example then look no further than healthcare, and consider the difference between the US and any country with a nationalised healthcare system.