Earlier quoted context omitted.
>He didn't create value. ??? He created $15 billion of value for his shareholders. >The banks had created value The banks have destroyed their shareholders' and depositors' money by investing in junk and failing to prepare for a downturn. Your 'moral' arguments are upside down.
he created $15B of net worth for his investors, not value. It was a wealth transfer, no net creation.
It is valuable because I would pay a fee to him in order for him to manage my money. Indeed you do not need to have created something to be of value.
The financial markets are a place to trade value, it can be viewed as a game, with given rules, rules which are accepted by ALL market participants who are exposed to RISK whether they know it or not. He played the game better, whether out of luck or skill he won. Just like sports stars they play by the rules and are valuable without the need to create, because its just that entertaining to see peak human performance.