按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
however rich the possessor of air might become at the expense of
the rest of the community； all persons else would be poorer by
all that they were compelled to pay for what they had before
obtained without payment。
This leads to an important distinction in the meaning of the
word wealth； as applied to the possessions of an individual； and
to those of a nation； or of mankind。 In the wealth of mankind；
nothing is included which does not of itself answer some purpose
of utility or pleasure。 To an individual anything is wealth；
which； though useless in itself； enables him to claim from others
a part of their stock of things useful or pleasant。 Take； for
instance； a mortgage of a thousand pounds on a landed estate。
This is wealth to the person to whom it brings in a revenue； and
who could perhaps sell it in the market for the full amount of
the debt。 But it is not wealth to the country； if the engagement
were annulled； the country would be neither poorer nor richer。
The mortgagee would have lost a thousand pounds； and the owner of
the land would have gained it。 Speaking nationally； the mortgage
was not itself wealth； but merely gave A a claim to a portion of
the wealth of B。 It was wealth to A； and wealth which he could
transfer to a third person； but what he so transferred was in
fact a joint ownership； to the extent of a thousand pounds； in
the land of which B was nominally the sole proprietor。 The
position of fundholders； or owners of the public debt of a
country； is similar。 They are mortgagees on the general wealth of
the country。 The cancelling of the debt would be no destruction
of wealth； but a transfer of it： a wrongful abstraction of wealth
from certain members of the community； for the profit of the
government； or of the tax…payers。 Funded property therefore
cannot be counted as part of the national wealth。 This is not
always borne in mind by the dealers in statistical calculations。
For example； in estimates of the gross income of the country；
founded on the proceeds of the income…tax； incomes derived from
the funds are not always excluded： though the tax…payers are
assessed on their whole nominal income； without being permitted
to deduct from it the portion levied from them in taxation to
form the income of the fundholder。 In this calculation；
therefore； one portion of the general income of the country is
counted twice over； and the aggregate amount made to appear
greater than it is by almost thirty millions。 A country； however；
may include in its wealth all stock held by its citizens in the
funds of foreign countries； and other debts due to them from
abroad。 But even this is only wealth to them by being a part
ownership in wealth held by others。 It forms no part of the
collective wealth of the human race。 It is an element in the
distribution； but not in the composition； of the general wealth。
Another example of a possession which is wealth to the person
holding it； but not wealth to the nation； or to mankind； is
slaves。 It is by a strange confusion of ideas that slave property
（as it is termed） is counted； at so much per head； in an estimate
of the wealth； or of the capital； of the country which tolerates
the existence of such property。 If a human being； considered as
an object possessing productive powers； is part of the national
wealth when his powers are owned by another man； he cannot be
less a part of it when they are owned by himself。 Whatever he is
worth to his master is so much property abstracted from himself；
and its abstraction cannot augment the possessions of the two
together； or of the country to which they both belong。 In
propriety of classification； however； the people of a country are
not to be counted in its wealth。 They are that for the sake of
which its wealth exists。 The term wealth is wanted to denote the
desirable objects which they possess； not inclusive of； but in
contradistinction to； their own persons。 They are not wealth to
themselves； though they are means of acquiring it。
It has been proposed to define wealth as signifying
〃instruments：〃 meaning not tools and machinery alone； but the
whole accumulation possessed by individuals or communities； of
means for the attainment of their ends。 Thus； a field is an
instrument； because it is a means to the attainment of corn。 Corn
is an instrument； being a means to the attainment of flour。 Flour
is an instrument； being a means to the attainment of bread。 Bread
is an instrument； as a means to the satisfaction of hunger and to
the support of life。 Here we at last arrive at things which are
not instruments； being desired on their own account； and not as
mere means to something beyond。 This view of the subject is
philosophically correct； or rather； this mode of expression may
be usefully employed along with others； not as conveying a
different view of the subject from the common one； but as giving
more distinctness and reality to the common view。 It departs；
however； too widely from the custom of language； to be likely to
obtain general acceptance； or to be of use for any other purpose
than that of occasional illustration。
Wealth； then； may be defined； all useful or agreeable things
which possess exchangeable value； or； in other words； all useful
or agreeable things except those which can be obtained； in the
quantity desired； without labour or sacrifice。 To this
definition； the only objection seems to be； that it leaves in
uncertainty a question which has been much debated whether
what are called immaterial products are to be considered as
wealth： whether； for example； the skill of a workman； or any
other natural or acquired power of body or mind； shall be called
wealth； or not： a question； not of very great importance； and
which； so far as requiring discussion； will be more conveniently
considered in another place。
These things having been premised respecting wealth； we shall
next turn our attention to the extraordinary differences in
respect to it； which exist between nation and nation； and between
different ages of the world； differences both in the quantity of
wealth； and in the kind of it； as well as in the manner in which
the wealth existing in the community is shared among its members。
There is perhaps； no people or community； now existing； which
subsists entirely on the spontaneous produce of vegetation。 But
many tribes still live exclusively； or almost exclusively； on
wild animals； the produce of hunting or fishing。 Their clothing
is skins； their habitations； huts rudely formed of logs or boughs
of trees； and abandoned at an hour's notice。 The food they use
being little susceptible of storing up； they have no accumulation
of it； and are often exposed to great privations。 The wealth of
such a community consists solely of the skins they wear； a few
ornaments； the taste for which exists among most savages； some
rude utensils； the weapons with which they kill their game； or
fight against hostile competitors for the means of subsistence；
canoes for crossing rivers and lakes； or fishing in the sea； and
perhaps some furs or other productions of the wilderness；
collected to be exchanged with civilized people for blankets；
brandy； and tobacco； of which foreign produce also there may be
some unconsumed portion in store。 To this scanty inventory of
material wealth； ought to be added their land； an instrument of
production of which they make slender use； compared with more
settled communities； but which is still the source of their
subsistence； and which has a marketable value if there be any
agricultural community in the neighbourhood requiring more land
than it possesses。 This is the state of greatest poverty in which
any entire community of human beings is known to exist； though
there are much richer communities in which portions of the
inhabitants are in a condition； as to subsistence and comfort； as
little enviable as that of the savage。
The first great adv