As a thought:

We use money as a convenient way to describe the value of someone's labour. But, it removes all context. It's kind of like having a multi variable equation to describe the economic value someone has, and either using approximations, derivatives, or substitutions, to simplify the equation into a single variable.

Then, we use markets to do the same thing with the needs of people. It's a simplified representation of what the real quantifiable needs of people and society are.

It's sort of like instead of asking everyone what they need and want, prioritizing the needs, and figuring out how much labour time is required to meet those needs, then figuring out how much labour time is required to meet the wants. We decided it is easier(true)/better to assume that each person will only choose to trade the amount of labour time they are willing to commit to trading for their needs/wants.

If someone in this situation is able to have more money than their labour value (theft, inheritance, etc.), they are disconnected from the effort required to meet their needs/wants. Thus, they have the money required to meet their needs, plus extra that is unearned, and an imbalance of power under this arrangement. It becomes possible to offer more for resources that are either scarce, or close enough to being scarce, thus driving up the price without any additional labour from that individual.

I bet it is possible to invent a new metric (besides money, but maybe unnecessary) and/or a new distribution tool (instead of the "market") that prioritizes needs and wants more than simply money/capital.

I'll call this work:

Crapital volume 1