Online Encyclopedia

Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.

WEALTH

Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V28, Page 438 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
» Make a correction to this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Spread the word: del.icio.us del.icio.us it!

WEALTH , etymologically the See also:

condition of well-being, prosperity in its widest sense. The word does not appear in Old See also:English, but is a See also:Middle English formation, welthe, on the O. Eng. wela, well-being, from wel, well, cognate with See also:Dan. See also:eel, Ger. wohl. The See also:original meaning survives in the See also:Prayer for the See also:King's See also:Majesty of the English Bock of See also:Common Prayer, " See also:Grant him in See also:health and wealth See also:long to live," and in " See also:commonwealth," i.e. See also:good of the See also:body politic, hence applied to the body politic itself. In See also:economics, wealth is most commonly defined as consisting of all useful and agreeable things which possess See also:exchange value, and this again is generally regarded as coextensive with all desirable things except those which do not involve labour or See also:sacrifice for their acquisition in the quantity desired. On See also:analysis it will be evident that this See also:definition implies, directly, preliminary conceptions of utility and value, and, indirectly, of sacrifice and labour, and these terms, See also:familiar though they may appear, are by no means See also:simple and obvious in their meaning. Utility, for the purposes of economic reasoning, is usually held to mean the capacity .to satisfy a See also:desire or serve a purpose (J. S. See also:Mill), and in this sense is clearly a much wider See also:term than wealth. See also:Sunshine and fresh See also:air, good See also:temper and pleasant See also:manners, and all the See also:infinite variety of means of gratification, material and immaterial, are covered by utility as thus defined. Wealth is thus a See also:species of utility, and in See also:order to See also:separate it from other species some differentia must be found. This, according to the See also:general definition, is exchange value, but a little reflection will show that in some cases it is necessary rather to contrast value with wealth.

" Value," says See also:

Ricardo, expanding a thought of See also:Adam See also:Smith, "essentially differs from riches, for value depends not on abundance but on the difficulty or facility of See also:production." According to the well-known tables ascribed to See also:Gregory King (1648-1712), a deficiency of a small amount in the See also:annual See also:supply of See also:corn will raise its value far more than in See also:pro-portion; but it would be paradoxical to argue that this rise in value indicated an increase in an important See also:item of See also:national wealth. Again, as the mines of a See also:country are exhausted and its natural resources otherwise impaired, a rise in the value of the See also:remainder may take See also:place, and as the See also:free gifts of nature are appropriated they become valuable for exchange; but the country can hardly be said to be so much the wealthier in See also:con-sequence. And these difficulties are rather increased than diminished if we substitute for value the more familiar See also:concrete term " See also:money-See also:price "—for the contrast between the quantity of wealth and its nominal value becomes more sharply marked. Suppose, for example, that in the See also:total money value of the national See also:inventory a decline were observed to be in progress, whilst at the Fame See also:time, as is quite possible, an increase was noticed in the quantity of all the important items and an improvement in their quality, it would be in accordance with common sense to say that the wealth of the country was in-creasing and not decreasing. So See also:great are these difficulties that some economists (e.g. Ricardo) have proposed to take utility as the See also:direct measure of wealth, and, as H. See also:Sidgwick has pointed out, if See also:double the quantity meant double the utility this would be an easy and natural See also:procedure. But even to the same individual the increase in utility is by no means simply proportioned to the increase in quantity, and the utility of different commodities to different individuals, and a fortiori of different amounts, is proverbial. The very same things may to the same individual be productive of more utility simply owing to a See also:change in his tastes or habits, and a different See also:distribution of the very same things, which make up the wealth of a nation, might indefinitely change the quantity of utility; but it would be paradoxical to say that the wealth had increased because it was put to better uses. We thus seem thrown back on value as the essential characteristic, See also:allowance being made for any change in the See also:standard of value; but there are still difficulties to be overcome. Some things that undoubtedly possess value or that can command a price are immaterial, e.g. the See also:advice of a lawyer or physician or the See also:song of a prima donna, and, although perhaps the skill of a workman (in any grade of the social See also:scale) might be considered as attached to the See also:man, as a See also:coal mine is attached to a place, it is more in accordance with popular usage to consider skill as immaterial, whilst at the same time it seems equally natural prima facie to confine the term wealth to material things in the common sense. Again, the See also:credit See also:system of a country is a product of great labour and sacrifice, it is most closely connected with the production of its material wealth in the narrowest sense, and it certainly commands a pecuniary value, and yet credit is more generally held to be a representative rather than a See also:part of wealth, owing apparently to its insubstantial See also:character.

Apart from the question of materiality some writers have insisted on relative permanence and possibility of See also:

accumulation as essential attributes of wealth, and have thus still further narrowed the See also:scope of the definition. There can be no doubt that it is on many grounds desirable in economics to use terms as far as possible in their popular acceptations; but this See also:rule must always be subordinate to the See also:primary See also:object in view. In nearly every See also:department of know-ledge in which popular terms have been retained it has been found necessary either constantly to use qualifying adjectives where the context is not a sufficient See also:guide, and in some cases, when analysis discloses very different elements, to make a selection. Sometimes it has been found convenient to use a term with some variation in the definition according to the See also:branch of the subject in See also:hand.' Applying these rules to the definition of wealth, perhaps the best See also:solution is that which is generally connected with See also:German economists (e.g. Adolf von Held). Wealth consists of utilities, and in the first great department of economics—the See also:consumption of wealth— it is utility with which we are principally concerned—the See also:idea of value, for example, being overshadowed. The most general See also:law of the consumption of wealth is that successive portions of any stock give a diminishing amount of utility when consumed. Then in the department of the production of wealth the most important characteristics are the labour and sacrifice necessary to put the utilities desired into the things and to place the things where they are wanted. The idea of value is again secondary and subordinate. We can readily see the part played by nature, labour add See also:capital respectively in the production of any commodity without considering the effects on its value of the various factors; we can understand the principles of See also:division of labour and of the relative productiveness of large and small See also:industries without entering into questions of value except in the most general manner. In the department of the distribution of wealth the fundamental conception is the right of See also:appropriation; and accordingly J. S.

Mill very properly commences this part of his subject by an See also:

account of the relative advantages of the socialistic and individual systems of See also:property. It is quite possible under the former to conceive of all the distribution being made without any exchange and with reference simply to the wants or the deserts of the members of the society. Thus it is not until we arrive at the department of the exchange of wealth that'the characteristic of value becomes predominant, although of course value is closely connected with utility and labour and sacrifice. ' On the uses and difficulties of See also:definitions in See also:political See also:economy compare H. Sidgwick's Principles of Political Economy, bk. i. ch. ii., and J. N. Keynes's Scope and Method of Political Economy. Usually, however, it will be found that in most cases anything which can fairly be classed as wealth in one department is also wealth in the others, and thus the definition is reached that wealth in general consists of all " consumable utilities which require labour for their production and can be appropriated and exchanged." It only remains to add that " utilities " may be divided into " inner " and " See also:outer " (to translate the German literally)—the " inner " being such as are simply See also:sources of See also:personal gratification to their possessor, e.g. a good See also:ear for See also:music; the " outer " utilities again may be divided into " free " and " economic," the former, as a rule, e.g. sunlight, not being the result of labour and not capable of appropriation or exchange, and the latter as a rule possessing each of these marks. It is these " economic utilities " which constitute wealth in the specific sense of the term, although its use may be extended by See also:analogy to include almost all utilities. See A. See also:Marshall, Principles of Economics (1907); J. B.

See also:

Clark, See also:Philosophy of Wealth (1886) and Distribution of Wealth (1899); W. E. See also:Hearn, Plutology (1864); F. A. See also:Walker, Political Economy r1988); and J. S. See also:Nicholson, Principles of Political Economy 03). (J. S. N.) WEAPON (0. Eng. w@See also:pen, cf. Du. wapen, Ger.

Wappe, also Wappen, a coat of arms, heraldic See also:

shield), any See also:instrument of offence or See also:defence, more usually a term confined to offensive or attacking See also:instruments. The general See also:sketch of the See also:history and development of weapons of offence and defence is given under ARMS AND See also:ARMOUR; particular weapons are treated under such heads as HALBERD, See also:LANCE, See also:SPEAR, See also:SWORD, See also:GUN, See also:PISTOL, See also:RIFLE, See also:ORDNANCE AND See also:MACHINE-GUNS.

End of Article: WEALTH

Additional information and Comments

There are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML.
Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.

Links to articles and home page are always encouraged.

[back]
WEALDEN 		[next]
WEAR

Site © 2006 - Net Industries