Finally, the social constraints upon the farmer and the trader are different in two important ways. Primo: farming produces rootedness, trade volatility. The farmer has a stake in the land, which makes him much less mobile than the trader. Also, his means of livelihood are much more secure than those of the trader, who can make huge profits one day and go broke the next. As a consequence, the farmer is a lot more predictable and trustworthy than the trader. In contrast to the latter, he can be relied upon to take a keen interest in and to take part in the preservation of the realm.
Secundo: the farmer depends on no one for his livelihood; he is independent. He can therefore speak for or against anyone, as he wishes. He can afford to be proud. The trader in contrast is dependent upon the favorable opinion of others. Trade therefore demands, or at least goads into deception. “Those who buy (..) and sell again immediately, should (..) be thought of as demeaning themselves. For they would make no profit unless they told sufficient lies, and nothing is more dishonorable than vanitas–misrepresentation.” Moreover, traders are likely to be sycophants; they cannot speak their minds freely, but have to fawn upon their customers and swallow their pride. ~Andreas Kinneging, Aristocracy, Antiquity and History