ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES

enquire, therefore, at the outset, what is understood by
wealth.
One characteristic common to all forms of wealth is that
of being able to satisfy some human want or desire. Not
all that can do this is wealth, and it is convenient to use the
word “goods” to designate whatever possesses this characteristic,
 and to speak of the quality itself as “utility.” When
the need, which certain goods can satisfy, is already
abundantly satisfied, these goods cease to have special
importance. This occurs when the supply of them is free,
and in sufficient quantity for all to have as much as they
wish. Under these conditions every one will make use of the
goods for every purpose which they can serve, but none will
have any motive for acquiring supplies of the goods from
others by exchange for other goods. In order to rank as
wealth, then, goods must be capable of ministering to
unsatisfied desires, they must be scarce.
Further, as wealth is a phenomenon of social life, goods
which are not of such a nature as to permit of a change of
ownership are generally excluded from the category wealth,
There are some scarce personal qualities which cannot be
separated from the individual who possesses them, and
which contribute largely to his personal satisfaction, and
even to his industrial efficiency, but which cannot be regarded
 as wealth. The relation of these qualities to wealth
has been a subject of considerable discussion. Consider the
skill of a workman. There can be no doubt that, were
slavery a legal institution, and the workman a slave, his skill
would be wealth to his owner, for a skilled slave is more
valuable than an unskilled slave, other things being equal,
[s, then, the question of whether skill is, or is not, wealth to
turn on the existence, or non-existence, of the institution of
slavery? One suggestion in reference to the matter is that
the wealth consists, not in the skill, but in the right to
dispose of it. This right belongs to the slave-owner where
slavery is recognised, to the labourer where it is not. But
the labourer can and does sell the right, with more or less
limitation in the extent to which it can be exercised, to his
employer. Thus the right to dispose of skill can be ex-