Socrates shewed that gold and silver are only Wealth in so far as they enable us to obtain what we want and demand: and that if we can use anything else to obtain what we want and demand in the same way as gold and silver do, such things are Wealth, just for the same reason that gold and silver are

Socrates then instanced professors and persons who gained their living by giving instruction in the various sciences. He said that persons got what they wanted in exchange for this instruction, just as they did for gold and silver: and consequently that the Sciences are Wealth-aἱ ἐπιστημαὶ χρήματα οὖσαι: and that those who are masters of such sciences are so much the richer —πλουσιώτεροί εἰσι

Now in instancing the Sciences as Wealth, that of course is a general term for Labour: because Labour in Economics is any exertion of Human Ability or Thought which is wanted, demanded, and paid for. Thus the author of this dialogue expressly classes Labour under the term Wealth Socrates in this dialogue shews that the Mind has wants and demands as well as the body: and that the things which are wanted and demanded for the Mind, and are paid for, are equally Wealth as those things which satisfy the wants and demands of the body, and are paid for

And this exactly agrees with Aristotle's definition that everything is Wealth whose Value can be measured in money: because if one person wants another to do any Labour or Service for him, and pays him for such Labour or Service, its Value is measured in money, as exactly as if it were a material chattel. Suppose that a person gives fifty guineas for a horse, and also fifty guineas for the opinion of an eminent counsel, the Value of the opinion is measured in money as exactly as the Value of the horse and therefore they are both equally Wealth: and in fact all modern Economists treat Labour as a Commodity, which can be bought and sold, and is subject to exactly the same Laws of Value as any material chattel

Modern Economists include Personal Qualities under the term Wealth

5. And in accordance with the author of the Eryxias all

Economists of note since Smith include Personal Qualities, Skill and Energy under the term Wealth

Thus under the term Fixed Capital Smith enumerates "the acquired and useful Abilities of all the inhabitants, or members of the society. The acquisition of such Talents, by the maintenance of the acquirer during his education, study, or apprenticeship always costs a real expense, which is a Capital fixed and realised as it were in his person. These Talents as they make part of his Fortune, so do they likewise that of the society to which he belongs"

So J. B. Say says-"He who has acquired a Talent at the price of an annual sacrifice, enjoys an accumulated Capital, and this Wealth, though immaterial, is nevertheless so little fictitious, that he daily exchanges the exercise of his art for gold and silver"

"Since it has been proved that Immaterial Property such as Talents and acquired Personal Abilities form an integral part of Social Wealth"

"You see that Utility, under whatever form it presents itself, is the source of the Value of things: and what may surprise you is that this Utility can be created, can have Value, and become the subject of an Exchange, without being incorporated in any material object. A manufacturer of glass places value in sand: a manufacturer of cloth places it in wool: but a physician sells us a Utility without being incorporated in any matter. This Utility is truly the fruit of his studies, his Labour and his Capital. We buy it in buying his opinion. It is a real product, but immaterial"

Say calls all species of Labour and Services Immaterial Wealth, because they are vendible products or commodities, but not embodied in any matter. We may also call them Personal Wealth, because they are always the products of some Person

Senior says "If the question whether Personal Qualities are articles of Wealth had been proposed in classical times, it would have appeared too clear for discussion. [We have already seen that the question was discussed in classical times.] The only differences in this respect between a freeman and a slave

are, first, that the freeman sells himself, and only for a period, and to a certain extent: the slave may be sold by others, and absolutely and secondly, that the Personal Qualities of the slave are a portion of the Wealth of his master: those of the freeman, so far as they can be made the subject of Exchange, are part of his own Wealth. They perish indeed by his death, and may be impaired or destroyed by disease, or rendered valueless by any change in the custom of the country, which shall destroy the Demand for his services: but, subject to these contingencies, they are Wealth, and Wealth of the most valuable kind. The amount of revenue derived from their exercise in England far exceeds the rental of all the lands in Great Britain"

So also "Even in our present state of civilisation, which high as it appears by comparison, is far short of what may be easily conceived, or even of what may be confidently expected, the Intellectual and Moral Capital of Great Britain far exceeds all the Material Capital, not only in importance, but in productiveness. The families that receive mere wages probably do not form a fourth of the community: and the comparatively larger amount of the wages even of these is principally owing to the Capital and Skill with which their efforts are assisted and directed by the more educated members of the society. Those who receive mere rent, even using that word in its largest sense, are still fewer and the amount of rent, like that of wages, principally depends on the knowledge by which the gifts of nature are directed and employed. The bulk of the national revenue is profit and of that profit the portion which is merely interest on Material Capital probably does not amount to one-third. The rest is the result of Personal Capital, or, in other words, of Education

"It is not in the accidents of the soil, in the climate, in the existing accumulation of the material instruments of production, but in the quantity and diffusion of this Immaterial Capital that the Wealth of a country depends. The climate, the soil, and the situation of Ireland have been described as superior, and certainly not much inferior to our own. Her poverty has been attributed to the want of Material Capital: but were Ireland now to exchange her native population for seven millions of our English North countrymen, they would quickly create the Capital

that is wanted. And were England North of the Trent to be peopled exclusively by a million of families from the west of Ireland, Lancashire and Yorkshire would still more rapidly resemble Connaught. Ireland is physically poor, because she is morally and intellectually poor. And while she continues uneducated, while the ignorance and violence of her population render persons and property insecure, and prevent the accumulation, and prohibit the introduction of Capital, legislative measures, intended solely and directly to relieve her poverty may not indeed be ineffectual, for they may aggravate the disease, the symptoms of which they are meant to palliate, but undoubtedly will be productive of no permanent benefit. Knowledge has been called Power-it is far more certainly Wealth. Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, and the northern coast of Africa, were once among the richest, and are now among the most miserable countries in the world, simply because they have fallen into the hands of a people without a sufficiency of the Immaterial sources of Wealth to keep up the Material ones

So Mill says "The Skill and the Energy and the Perseverance of the artizans of a country are reckoned part of its Wealth, no less than its tools and machinery." And why not the Skill and Energy and Perseverance of other classes as well as artizans? He also says-" Acquired capacities, which exist only as means, and have been called into existence by Labour, fall exactly, as it seems to me, within that designation "

So Madam Campan inscribed over the Hall of Study in her establishment at St. Germain

"Talents are the ornament of the rich, and the Wealth of the poor"

:

:

We have thus already found two distinct kinds of things which can be bought and sold, or whose Value can be measured in Money (1) Material Things which can be seen and handled, such as money, cattle, corn, &c. and (2) Things which can neither be seen nor handled, but which can be bought and sold; and though these two kinds of things have nothing in common. except the capability of being bought and sold, they are each for that reason comprehended under the term Wealth

General Rule of Roman Law that Rights are Wealth

6. But there is yet another order of Quantities, quite distinct from the two preceding ones, which can be bought and sold, or exchanged, and whose Value, therefore, can be measured in Money: and it is to this class of Quantities that the student must direct his most earnest attention; because it is the one which modern Economists have the greatest difficulty in apprehending and it is the one with which we are chiefly concerned in this work

Suppose that a customer pays in a sum of money to his account at his banker's-What becomes of that Money? It becomes the absolute property of the banker to deal with in any way he pleases. The customer transfers the absolute property in the money to the banker: but he does not make him a present of it. He gets something in exchange for it. And what is that something? In exchange for the Money the banker gives his customer a Credit in his books: which is a Right of action to demand back an equivalent sum of money at any time he pleases. Furthermore, the banker agrees that his customer may transfer this Right of action, in the form of a Cheque or Bank Note, to any one else he pleases. So this Right of action may pass through any number of hands, and effect any number of exchanges, exactly like the same sum of money, until the holder of it demands payment of it and it is extinguished

This Right of action is termed a Credit: because any one who chooses to take it in exchange for goods or services knows well enough that it is not the Right or Title to any specific sum of money but it is only an abstract Right against the banker to demand a sum of money from him: and it is only taken because the receiver has the belief or confidence that he can get money for it when he requires it

It will be convenient to state here that this Right of action is also in Law and common usage termed a Debt: and that the words Credit and Debt are used perfectly indiscriminately to mean a Creditor's Right of action against his Debtor. The reason of this will be explained in a subsequent section. And this Right of action or Credit, or Debt, is the Price which the banker pays for the money