Sec. 6. #Changes in the price-standard#.  These figures, moreover, are expressed in terms of the monetary price-unit, in dollars of the gold standard, and therefore the increasing total figure (and correspondingly, the increasing per capita) may be but the reflection of a change in the value of the monetary unit.  It is well known that the gold dollar has now less purchasing power than in 1880, and less also than at any intervening time.[2] To the extent that this is true the increase in the figures of wealth (total and per capita) is only nominal and does not indicate increase in the quantity and betterment in the quality of real wealth.  This fact is so evident that it would seem unnecessary to call attention to it, if it were not constantly overlooked in citing these figures.

Sec. 7. #A sum of capital, not of wealth#.  Consider further, that the figures here given for wealth really express but the sum of capitals of the individuals (or private corporations) of the nation.  These do not constitute a sum of social wealth in any proper sense of the term.[3] Arithmetically it is a fallacious kind of a total, for the sum of the individual capitals contains some items that should be canceled to find the sum of wealth.  Moreover, capital is an acquisitive concept.  It is an expression of the value of a man’s possessions, and not of the utility[4] of them.  It measures intensity of desire for goods and not necessarily the degree of welfare.  Such a total, therefore, embodies the difficulties of the paradox of value; in some cases increased value reflects a growing scarcity and not greater abundance.[5]

For example, between 1900 and 1915, with the growth of population, the total number of improved acres in farms in the United States increased but little, and the per capita number diminished.  At least in part as a result of this fact, the prices of nearly all kinds of food rose rapidly, as did also the price of farm land.  The prices (and estimated values) of farm lands are the expression of the individual capitals, which formed each year an increasing statistical total of so-called wealth.  The people had less land per capita, and were poorer per capita as respects this item of landed-wealth, had less meat per capita, and had to give more labor in exchange for food, at the same time that the statistical per capita of land values increased.

So it may be as respects forests, coal, cotton, and eventually iron, copper, and many other things.  When forests were plentiful, lumber and fire wood were free goods in many neighborhoods.  Forests entered into the total of national “wealth” in 1850 and 1860 at a comparatively small sum.  But in 1910 when the forests had been half used up they appeared as a greater total and probably as a greater per capita item of “wealth” than in 1850.  The figures reflect changes in the paradoxical section of the scale of values, and express scarcity rather than wealth.

Altho the wealth of a nation may not be expressed as a single sum of values that accurately reflects the weal-bringing things composing its environment, some conception of the situation is to be gained by an enumeration of goods in their kinds and quantities and by studying their relations to the life of the people.  Objects of wealth may be grouped in various ways.  The following may serve our purpose of a general survey of our present resources.