[eulenteufel]

>They understand how the above instruments are crucial for an economy even though they are not end-user products like Twitter is.

Do they actually know these instruments are crucial for the economy or do they just know how to make money with it? I'd think the latter would be enough.

Can you recommmend any resources to understand the importance of financial instruments to the economy?

[jakupovic]

>Do they actually know these instruments are crucial for the economy or do they just know how to make money with it? I'd think the latter would be enough.

There is no difference in capitalism between something being "crucial" for economy or just a way "to make money." They are equivalent.

[eulenteufel]

That's hard for me to understand. I'd take 'crucial to the enconomy' to mean 'positively coupled to the rest of the economy' or 'the rest of the economy would be worse off/less efficient if this financial instrument were to be outlawed.

Why does this follow from 'makes a lot of money'? That seems like a very complicated question to me.

[jakupovic]

I was trying to say that these are equivalent, crucial to economy and way to make money. To me they are equivalent because capitalism will find the shortest and most efficient path, if it doesn't make money it will not exist. Hence, crucial means survives by making money.

[rrrrrrrrrrrryan]

Most relationships in capitalism are symbiotic, yes, but just like the natural world, predatory and even parasitic relationships abound as well.