we do not produce anything and therefore we cannot call it a "job"
Yeah, the usual "we provide liquidity" reply. Saying that we are useful because we provide liquidity sounds to me like a criminal saying that he's useful because he provides jobs for the police, a serial killer saying he's useful because he provides ideas for movie makers and ultimately entertainment for people, and an arsonist saying he provides jobs for firefighters. But even more related, a professional gambler saying he provides education to the suckers he wins money from.
So I am by all means disrespecting the job. This job deserves less respect than most other jobs, and it is not a job. Even a drug dealer is more useful to society than us.
Having said this, who says that people are bakers because they want to fight the hunger? Who says that a lawyer becomes a lawyer to help the needy rather than to make money? Most of us do what we do to make money and not to help others, so we're not worse than most people. But let's not say that it's a job or that it's a useful job. It's not a job. We're just doing what everyone else is doing: trying to make money. Then it's up to us how we use it. We're all looking after our interests, even the doctors and the lawyers are.
But let's not try to say that we're just as useful as a doctor or a lawyer, because we're going to lose that debate. We're trying to make money like most doctors and lawyers, and that is ok. Except that by trying to make money they produce a service. When we do this, we provide very close to zero value to society.
Best example, though is the parasite fish, what is it called... remora:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echeneidae
The relationship between remoras and their perfect hosts is most often taken to be one of commensalism, specifically phoresy. The host they attach to for transport gains nothing from the relationship, but also loses little. The remora benefits by using the host as transport and protection and also feeds on materials dropped by the host.
But even a better quote is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commensalism
In ecology, commensalism is a class of relationship between two organisms where one organism benefits but the other is neutral (there is no harm or benefit). There are three other types of association: mutualism (where both organisms benefit), competition (where both organisms are harmed) and parasitism (one organism benefits and the other one is harmed).
This is a ridiculous entry, actually, because the second sentence contradicts the first. But the correct part is the first sentence (there's got to be more than 3 categories so the second sentence is wrong): we benefit and we don't hurt anyone, but saying that we're "useful" is not exactly describing things the way they are. It is stretching the truth. We fit perfectly the category of "parasites".
Here's the situation:
The commercial farmer using the future to no longer worry about "
being ruined by a low wheat price at harvest time" is the shark. We're the remora. That's how useful we are to society. But as I said, we're just trying to make money and that's pretty common, also among lawyers and doctors.
And this bit was to address how useful we are. As useful as remoras.
But now, since I also said repeatedly that it's not a "job", let's investigate that concept as well:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/job
1. a piece of work, especially a specific task done as part of the routine of one's occupation or for an agreed price: She gave him the job of mowing the lawn.
2. a post of employment; full-time or part-time position: She was seeking a job as an editor.
3. anything a person is expected or obliged to do; duty; responsibility: It is your job to be on time.
Job doesn't sound to me like the correct term to define what trading is. Nor does it sound to the dictionary. That is, unless we're traders for someone else. Then it is a job by all means. If we're independent traders, then it doesn't seem to be a "job". As independent traders, we don't do trading for "an agreed price" (cfr.1). It is not a "post of employment" (cfr.2). We're not
obliged to do it (cfr. 3).
However, let's look at the etymology, too, and we find some relation to a job:
Word Origin & History
job
1557, in phrase jobbe of worke "piece of work" (contrasted with continuous labor), perhaps a variant of gobbe "mass, lump" (c.1400, see
gob). Sense of "work done for pay" first recorded 1660. Slang meaning "specimen, thing, person" is from 1927. The verb is attested from 1670. On the job "hard at work" is from 1882. Jobber "one who does odd jobs" is from 1706. Job lot is from obsolete sense of "cartload, lump," which may also be ult. from gob.
Now we look for gob:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gob
That's not useful.
But let's put it like this. If "job" is simply something we do to make money, then it is a job. However, if "job" is expected to be something where you have an employer, a contract, a regular wage, then "independent trader" is not a job. I mean, yes, a guy selling peanuts nor any other entrepreneur have a regular wage, an employer... so that is not logical either. Basically the whole point of something being a "job" seems not to be even the regularity of the wage, nor the employer, nor the contract, but rather the mere fact that you're producing a service for others. "Thief" is not a job. There you have it. "Independent trader" is closer to being a "thief" than to anything else. If a "thief" can call what he does a "job" then we can also call it a "job", otherwise we can't. The whole thing keeps on revolving around the same issue: we do not produce anything and therefore we cannot call it a "job". And I am going to title this post with this thesis statement I just proved.
I admire you for being so open and honest about everything 
