Money is the Catalyst to Culture

Citing Ayn Rand irks many people, but she did make a strong point about the role of money. In Atlas Shrugged,  Rand claims money isn't evil.  Money is a stack of semi-precious metal and paper.  She defines it as the representation of one's work, and people define through consent the numerical value behind money.

Some argue that because money is the instrument that can acquire weapons and illegal narcotics, it must be the root of evil.  But money also commissions art and creates incentive to research medicine.  The way we use money defines our culture.

Let's consider the modern yuppie.  Said person pursues a position in banking to accumulate wealth so that the person may enjoy front row tickets to see Beyonce or eat expensive steak.  We claim that this person is living excessively with little to no regard to the rest of society.

Backtrack to 11th century Northern Song China.  A businessman trades his goods at a profit so that he may cultivate his fields for the best tasting tea.  The emperor offers the grand prize of exclusive rights to sell him tea.  Everyone competes and refines their methods until someone wins.  Again, tea has little to no utilitarian value to society.  Is it wrong to enjoy a cup tea?

Is it because of the recentness of modern culture that we can say it lacks "cultural" value?  Imagine if something we now consider lowbrow, like Justin Beiber's lyrics, became classical canon for future English textbooks centuries from now?

Regardless of what your taste is for tea or Justin Beiber, we can't deny that both were the products of the movement of money.  All elements of culture require human energy to produce.  If the definitions of human morals are also the product of human energy, couldn't I make the touchy claim that morals are also made of money?