Correspondence.

Tuapeka Times, Volume XVII, Issue 1029, 2 April 1884, Page 3

Correspondence.

WHAT IS WEALTH ?

(To the Editor.)

Sib, — A few remarks anent the censure of " A.8.C." He states of the assertion—" ' the three sources of wealth ara laud, labour, and capital '—that it is nonseuse pure and simple;" then he proceeds to demonstrate that a man who possesses capital {e.g., a good pair of calves) has wealth, becauso bis capital has an exchange value. Does he not see that the calves-owner is dependent on the prefer ence of his lord ; that of wealth the one " suitable person" has as much as the other, and that their wealth is really the "equal intelligence and ability," when exercise I, which he states they possess. An English writer divides all men into three classesworkers, beggars, and thieves. Henry G-eorge says " there ore only three ways by which any individual can get wealth— by work, by gift, or by theft." [ Vide " Social Problems," page 112.] The grossest disregard of logic is apparent in every sentence of your correspondent's letter, notwithstanding his assumption of scientific knowledge. He begins, "He apparently ;" then he would have me believe that I think " nothing is wealth but money ;" and, in his ignorance of the first principles of political economy he tells me that land, labour, and capital (which I assert are sources of wealth) are actually wealth. What kind of logic is his which says that land, labour, and capital (or either of them) are wealth., when be knows that money is not wealth. I presume he is a landlord : let me suppose that he has 300 acres of land. It is very certain that it is not wealth, therefore, land is not wealth, but it is equally certain that whatever is produced from it to benefit mankind is wealth ; therefore, land is not wealth, but is a source of wealth, and so with labour and capital, the other terms. Professor Jevons says : " People may live upon land full of natural riches, as the North American Indians lived upon the country which now forms the United States; nevertheless, they may be very poor, because they cannot, or they will not labour, in such a way as to turn the natural riches into toealth, ["Political Economy Primer," page 13.] Henry George says : •' Nothing which Nature supplies to man without his labour is wealth, nor yet does the expenditure of labour result in wealth unless there is a tangible product which has and retains the power of ministering to desire," [''Progress aud Poverty," page 7.] And, again, " the value of land is but the result of the acknowledgement in favour of certain persons of an exclusive right to its use, and which represents merely the power thus given to the owners to demand a share of the wealth produced by those xolio use them." [''Progress and Poverty," page 6, chap. ll.] Let me prescribe for your correspondent "A.B.C."— first, a course of logic, paying special attention to the chapter on fallacies; and afterwards let him tako up industrial science. Space is too valuable for mo to accept the task of teaching the above sciences to " A.B.C." — I am, &c, The Contbibutob.