All human systems are social, and so is the commercial market. The excessive use of technical analysis often used to explain the underlying structure of commercial markets subdues the essential humanness of the economic realm.
This alienation of sorts is largely made possible by the presence of monetary transactions.
Money based interpretations are amenable to mathematical precision.
The whole human chaos of any market recedes to the background as the researchers focus on the quantum of monetary funds to size up the market and analyze it according to established and elegant mathematical paradigms.
The sophistication and ease of money based exchanges took away the unwieldy grossness of the barter system and along with it reduced to a significant degree the human aspect of commercial transactions.
When one kind of produce is exchanged for another, the individuality of every such a set of produce affects the dynamism of exchange.
This impact can be considered the human element which is negligible when transactions occur in the form of money.
Money is symbolic.
It represents a value the validity of which is derived from the consensus agreed upon by the market participants.
The invention of money offered efficiency and scale to the commercial markets. In its wake the money solution also brought in an unprecedented level of homogeneity to commercial transactions and completely took away the uniqueness and crucial identity markers belonging erstwhile to an artisan’s wares or a farmers’ produce.
The unsought for separation between the agents executing a transaction from the context in which it takes place effected by the agency deployed to make it more efficient could be seen as the root cause of the angst and resentment generally harboured and occasionally expressed against money and material assets.
Increase in the size of commercial markets brought to the fore certain inevitable aspects of social existence, primarily its unjust and perennially unfair nature.
In no other human system the crassness and the ugliness of the natural prejudices against the deprived find expression to a degree which they attain in a commercial market.
It is no outstretch of imagination to attribute a fiendish and horrific nature to money.
It readily accumulates in larger and larger amounts in the hands of those already
possessed with heaps of it.
Whenever markets find level, it is not of balanced distribution but rather akin to a community swimming pool with graded levels of depths.
The shallow levels teem with populace and are characterized with low risk taking while the riskier depths have greater accumulation of water.
While it seems sensible to effect such a distribution of water in a swimming pool, similar distribution of material assets and money brought by commercial markets is considered unfair and unjustified by many.
The tenets of empirical laws such as the Pareto Principle suggest otherwise. According to these laws, such a distribution is simply the nature’s way of ensuring efficiency of resource allocation and efficacy of outcomes.
Money is a great enabler of viewpoints which place quantity over quality, numbers over textures and abstract over tangible.
In present days, the existence of markets dealing with invisible commodities where entire enterprise is motivated towards outcomes measured in the form of stored presence and absence of electrical current in specifically designed channels and storage systems further aggravates the cynicism towards monetary gains.
As money is a artificial construct many assume so are its pernicious impacts on the society. Its absorption of identity markers of individual produce and its further sophistication in the form electronic and digital currencies have provided much strength to the classical bias against material comfort and gains. And herein probably lie the essential opposition between gainers and opposers, between capitalism and socialism.