But suppose again, that the water is a commodity that will not keep without speedy decay-and suppose, also, that no new supply can be obtained in answer to an order, in less than a week or ten days. Now, if during such an interval, the customers should be fewer than usual, so that the demand should decrease, the price would fall, and he would sell at almost any price, rather than suffer a total loss.

Or, if the number of travelers wanting water should increase, he would raise his price, demand all he could get, and the price might rise up to its maximum-the intrinsic value of the article, totally independent of any change in the exchangeable value, or average cost of reproduction.

CHAPTER III.

OF PERSONS IN RELATION TO WEALTH.

The two elements or factors of wealth-Value in relation to sale and consumption—Wealth considered as distributive and aggregate-Aggregate wealth important to nations, distributive wealth to individuals-The motives by which men are actuated -Different kinds of human wants-All persons considered as laborers-Producers and consumers-Unproductive consumption-Producers classified-The function of agriculturists-The function of manufacturers-Their relation to intrinsic valueLimit to the increase of exchangeable value-Limit to manufactures-Their relation to distributive wealth-The function of traders-Their relation to quantity and intrinsic value-The way in which they increase wealth-Limits to their usefulness-Usefulness of the three classes compared-The function of inventors-All the population referred to the three classes.

29. The two elements or factors of wealth.

Wealth must be considered as the product of two factors, quantity and value, thus

Q x V = W

If we know that a man owns fifty acres of land,

we know the quantity of his possessions, but we can infer nothing whatever from this as to the amount of his wealth. Or if we know that land is worth one hundred dollars per acre, we have indeed an expression of its value; but we do not know what is his wealth until we know how much he has of such land; with both factors we can compute his wealth-50 x 100 = 5000, or five thousand dollars.

30. Value in relation to sale and consumption.

In this formula we must for the most part understand exchangeable value. But there are cases where the intrinsic value is the only one that will fulfill the conditions of the formula. If for example, a man were alone on an island with only a limited supply of any article necessary to life, the exchangeable value of that article would be of no consequence to him since he is out of the reach of exchange; and intrinsic value, the capacity to satisfy his wants, would be the only factor that would enter into the account to modify our estimate of his wealth. If he had only one hundred bushels of wheat or their equivalent in bread, and the intrinsic value of nine bushels is equal to one year of life, we have in this fact a means of measuring his wealth.

And in fact it is one of the fundamental principles of Political Economy, that the intrinsic value of that

portion of the products of one's labor which he consumes, is the only value that enters into the account of his wealth, while in regard to that portion which he sells, the exchangeable value is the only one that is of importance to him.

One hundred bushels of wheat will go as far towards supporting the farmer's family when it is selling at one price, as if it were selling at any other. But for purposes of sale and exchange, seventy-five bushels at one dollar per bushel, are as good as one hundred bushels at seventy-five cents per bushel.

This is a fact that should never be lost sight of, and will come up for application a good many times in our subsequent discussions.

31. Wealth considered as distributive and ag

gregate.

Wealth may be considered as either aggregate or distributive. By the "aggregate wealth" we mean the entire wealth of community, irrespective of its distribution among the people, and even of the number of people altogether.

By "distributive wealth" we mean the product of the wealth estimated in dollars, or something of the kind, divided by the number of population.

Thus the aggregate wealth of the State of New York, was, in 1850, $1,765,944,246. Divide this

by the number of population at that time, and we have $460.86, as the distributive wealth: that is, $460.86 is the sum which every person would have had, if the wealth had been equally distributed among all the people in the State.

32. Aggregate wealth important to nations, distributive wealth to individuals.

Now it is manifest that any means which can increase the aggregate wealth while the population remains the same, or which will increase the aggregate wealth faster than the population increases in numbers, will augment the distributive wealth. And as the distributive wealth indicates the average amount of the means of satisfying the wants of the people, the greater the distributive wealth, the better the condition of the people, when regarded solely from an economical point of view. And no increase of aggregate wealth that is not greater than the increase of the population, so as to increase the distributive wealth or the ratio between wealth and population, can improve the condition of the people.

Thus, suppose each man's distributed wealth to be $500, it can make no difference whether he lives in a nation of 30,000,000 inhabitants, with $15,000,000,000, aggregate wealth, or one of 5,000,000 inhabitants, with $2,500,000,000, aggregate wealth—