38 NATURE OF CAPITAL AND INCOME [Cuar. I 
§ 11 
Since wealth and property are each the opposite aspect 
of the other, economics might be described as the ““sci- 
ence of property’ quite as truly as the “science of wealth.” 
If we are studying the economic condition of a whole 
country, we prefer to fix our attention upon wealth, caring 
less about how its ownership is divided. We are then inter- 
ested in the acreage of wheat fields, the extent of coal 
mines, railways, factories, and homesteads, and not in their 
owners. On the other hand, if we are studying the “dis- 
tribution of wealth” — the condition of individuals or of 
classes — it is property on which we need to fix attention. 
The idea of wealth, therefore, is associated with the wel- 
fare of the community in general, while that of property 
is associated with the welfare of the different individuals 
in the community. 
But, it may be asked, why is so much stress laid on 
the principle that wealth and property are coextensive? 
It may be conceded that most of the principles of political 
economy will be unaffected whether or not this one is ac- 
cepted as rigorously true. Its usefulness consists in help- 
ing us to arrange our ideas. At present there seems to 
exist in the popular mind a confusion of the concepts of 
wealth, property, certificates of property, services, and utility, 
all of which should be carefully separated from each other. 
No one can fully understand monetary problems, for instance, 
unless he distinguishes carefully the three elements to which 
the term “money” is indiscriminately applied. There is 
money-wealth, such as a gold eagle; money-property, such 
as the right of a holder of “greenbacks”; and money-cer- 
tificates, such as the paper “greenbacks” themselves, If 
the fact that wealth and property are coextensive were more 
generally known and acknowledged, some very practical and 
salutary results would follow. Wild schemes of currency 
inflation, which are based on the idea that wealth may be