Well yes, they do mean less and less, but in the context of the quote, that's exactly what makes the argument moot. To be more concrete, Iceland didn't benefit from having bankers and quants in Reykjavik become programmers in Silicon Valley. Actually quite the contrary. His claim only makes (some) sense in a global, moral context - i.e. when one starts with the assumption that bankers don't add value, then defaulting meant getting rid of the bankers, hence a net positive. But pragmatically, from the point of what was better for Iceland, I don't get it.
The argument makes a lot of sense economically: patronage of banking vs resource reallocation.
This tells us, of course, that bankers didn't add (enough marginal) value. Which was probably true, given that they defaulted. Iceland profits from not calling with a shitty hand (i.e. bailing out stupid banks). No "bankers are evil" morality needed.
