Here we go again, talking about 'immoral behaviour' without first defining our terms. What is 'immoral behaviour', exactly? As far as I can tell from reading the posts on OLO, it means 'other people's behaviour that I don't like'. Of course I behave better than other people, and of course I could spend their money better than they do -- in my own mind, anyway. But as someone whose name I have forgotten once wrote: "It is as difficult to fall into money and not act rich as it is to fall into water and not get wet."

In any event, anyone who believes that money is not a necessary prerequisite for (conventionally) moral behaviour is invited to try and live without it for a few weeks. On the contrary, one of the most effective ways to promote moral behaviour in a society is to increase affluence. (A universal secular public education system helps too.) But the fact is that if we have an open society which values diversity, then some people in it are going to do things with their money that you or I don't like. It's called freedom. Get used to it.

Mr Ahmed, you open a door to a truly frightening world.
What happens if -as you say- two thirds of our best and brightest turn their backs on science, on medicine and engineering, and devote themselves to lining their pockets at the expense of others?
The gap between rich and poor has been increasing at an accelerating rate since the fifties. While 30,000 children die every day, for the crime of being born in the wrong place at the wrong time, we have people with more money than they could possibly spend in a hundred lifetimes.
The smart thing to do is find the simplest way to achieve outcomes.
If the outcome is simply to be rich, then the simplest way is not to increase productivity, or innovate, or invent; these are all rather difficult.
The simplest way is to lend money to those who desperately need it, at usorious rates.