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 ““science
 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 interested
 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 “distribution
 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 welfare
 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 accepted
 as rigorously true. Its usefulness consists in helping
 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-certificates,
 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