"Now as I begin this discussion, let me start by saying that one important idea of mine is that strictly speaking, money is not wealth. Goods and services are wealth. Money is only a way to obtain wealth. The social contract we all adhere to as a society is that people produce goods and services, and in return receive the medium of exchange - cash. The cash allows people to obtain wealth elsewhere."

Hmm, I don't understand how the write wants to distinguish the value between money and other objects. The writer says that since the value of money is a social construction, its value isn't as real as objects like houses and cars that serve some purpose. This is a fallacious reasoning. No value is intrinsic. Even houses and cars are valuable only because we think they are valuable. In this sense, the value of houses and cars are as socially constructed as money. So his whole argument falls apart.

If he wants to save himself here, he would have to assert that making any profit from transaction is wrong because it is charging more than what it is actually worth. But then again, even this isn't going to work.

The value of an object is subject to change depending on our needs. Person A might need an object X more than Person B. Then X is worth more to A than B. So if X is sold to A rather than B, is the seller making a profit?

Good luck sorting these things out, mistyriver. By the way, Marx couldn't do it.