There is a natural tendency to diminish money as a measure of anything good, but money really is the yardstick by which we jointly measure all things, trading off time with kids, family, travel, leisure against other priorities, and being rewarded by the rest of society for our contributions to what they want to spend money on, their tradeoffs.
Turns out that there are a bunch of very skilled highly educated people who want to spend their time researching cancer (which cure they could sell for a lot of money), compared to those who are most capable of and interested in, financially restructuring companies.
That hedge fund guy's donation to CMU is tax-deductible; we do that because everybody loves a philanthropist giving. His tax bracket is let's say 50%, so, where he would have owed $50 million to the government on that $100 million income, by giving it to CMU, they get the full $100 million and the guy owes no tax; of course leaving it to the rest of the tax payers to cover that $50 million in the state and federal budgets... but that's a good deal because a private elite university got more money? (And if hedgie donated appreciated securities rather than income, the bracketed tax savings get amplified that much more...)
There are plenty of places where "the market" chooses the wrong winners (by some important measures) but most of the complaints about the market don't go in that direction. Talk about how important money is, instead of socially devaluing it, then it would be easier to focus people's attention on cartel and monopoly pricing, negative externalities, etc.