> My question was more oriented around the idea of how people are convinced to perform an action that they have no interest in doing. {...}

This is a voluntary exchange and an action. All actions, as Von Mises put it, aims to achieve a "happy" future. For being a voluntary exchange, both sides are moving towards this, what they (each one) believe, to be a "happy" future.

For example, someone can work to pay for their kid's education, because the worker thinks this is the best way to reach the happiest future situation.

>> A restriction into direct exchanges

> I never argued for this

Yes, it was not my intention to say you argued that. But I think it's elucidating to understand what money (and capitalism) is.

>> So the role of money is to move human effort and resources around towards urgent needs.

> Is this motivatation ethical?

Yes, it is. All voluntary interaction are ethically good/correct. Also, defending oneself from involuntary interaction is also ethical.
To see more on this, which I find very hard/complex, see Hoppe's "Argumentation Ethics", such as the one he explains in this video: "On Man, Nature, Truth, and Justice" [1h] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in3sacFHcck

> In fact, it's a kind of fetishism.

It is not a fetish. It's humility to acknowledge that one don't know and don't pretend to know what everyone else knows (what they need, what they want to do or become), and the available tools, such as price indications, must be used for orientation. The opposite would be to participate in involuntary interactions and force people around, like totalitarians leaders/populations, such as in this "minimum working hours law".

You can easily see that money is a coordination+relocation tool. Imagine that someone accumulates 10 billion dollars in cash. Then let's say this person burns all that cash. Now: is anyone poorer after that single event? The resources spread among society, did any of it got affected, at all? ..that's one way to separate money(cash) from wealth.

> To me, the reason why people work for others in exchange for money is simple {..}

Well, for this I recommend Hoppe's (again) essay "Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis": https://mises.org/system/tdf/9_2_5_0.pdf?file=1&type=documen...

And also think more about that of specialization and division of labor. Participating on it does increase everyone's wealth.
I know this would be "impossible" by marxist analysis, since wealth would be a zero-sum game, but this Adam Smith's view on cost/price/wealth was getting outdated by Carl Menger's subjective valuation of goods/services (and Marx was alive and quite young by then, during Menger's writings).

> what would it look like?

You are expressing "what if people wanted different stuff/goals", but this must always be left for each one themselves. Each must be free to choose. Now, I agree that there is a consumption impulsion unto society as a whole, but it's not from capitalism, but from the government. Central banking and forcing the usage of that ever inflating currency is basically melting people's money away, preventing savings and longer term thinking (on average). This induces consumption, a colossal amount of consumption. But again, that's on socialism (government), not capitalism.