.
Total capacity isn't the key, here. It's latency. And you're really exaggerating the impact air has on the speed of radio propagation. When you take into account the physical latency of the distance to satellites in geo stationary orbit, it's easy to see that a microwave network can be faster. If you're using non-geostationary satellites for communication, you have to negotiate the infrastructure changing out from under you constantly. Reliability is key for these networks. Waiting milliseconds for your physical layer to switch to a new satellite means you lose. QoS also adds significant latency. It's not a viable choice for extremely low-latency networks.
As an aside, you'll probably get a more positive response around here if you endeavour to keep your comments from getting so emotionally laden ... saying bullshit multiple times doesn't do anything to strengthen your argument.
Nobody is disputing the fact that fibre optic can handle much higher bandwidths, but that is irrelevant in this application. The amount of data required to make a trade is probably in the order of kiloBytes or MegaBytes, easily handled by the few Gbps limit of microwave links.
The reason why satellite internet is so terrible is because a geostationary satellite sits 22,236 miles above the surface of the earth. So for a roundtrip journey, a packet of data has to travel nearly 45,000 miles.
Satellite internet has high latency not because "pushing through air" but because geostationary satellites are very far.