id="id00080">                                              Average
                                total per capita
          Population. "wealth." wealth.

1850 23,200,000 $7,136,000,000[a] $308 1860 31,400,000 16,160,000,000[a] 514 1870 38,600,000 24,055,000,000[a b] 624 1880 50,200,000 43,642,000,000 870 1890 62,900,000 65,037,000,000 1,036 1900 76,000,000 88,517,000,000 1,165 1904 82,500,000 107,104,000,000 1,318 1912 95,400,000 187,739,000,000 1,965

[Footnote a: Taxable only; all other figures include exempt.]

[Footnote b: Estimated on a gold basis.]

A detailed comparison of the classes of concrete things making up the totals is possible only in the last three sets of figures (1900 to 1912), and they are here given (omitting 000,000).

1900. 1904. 1912. 1. Real property (excepting some items below) 52,538 62,331 110,700 2. Irrigation enterprises [a] [a] 360 3. Agricultural equipment (livestock, tools, etc.) 3,822 4,919 7,706 4. Manufacturing equipment 2,541 3,298 6,069 5. Transportation agencies 11,249 14,434 22,360 6. Telegraph and telephones 612 813 1,304 7. Waterworks (privately owned) 263 275 290 8. Electric lighting plants 403 563 2,099 9. Products (still in trade)[b] 8,294 10,212 21,577 10. Direct goods in use[c] 6,880 8,250 12,758 11. Gold and silver 1,677 1,999 2,617

[Footnote a: No figures for these years.]

  [Footnote b: The main items are agricultural and mining products and
  imported merchandise.]

  [Footnote c: The main items are clothing, personal adornment, furniture,
  and carriages.]

§ 5. #Average wealth and the problem of distribution#. The foregoing figures make a most satisfactory showing, and appear to indicate that mere economic problems are rapidly being solved by the growth of national wealth. But unfortunately these figures have little significance in connection with such an inquiry, if indeed they are not badly misleading.

In the first place, the final figures of "per capita wealth" are merely averages; a per capita increase, therefore, may appear when total wealth increases, altho the total may be due to the growth of comparatively few very large fortunes. The fact is evident that vast numbers of individuals and families are nearly propertyless and in so far as this is true there is involved one of the greatest of our socio-economic problems, that of the distribution of wealth and income among the people. The more unequal the distribution, the greater, in all likelihood, is the discontent; and the greater the effort of many men to find some methods by which greater equality may be attained.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 8. #Sources of food supply#. The land area of the country in 1910 was about 1,900,000,000 acres, of which 879,000,000 acres were in farms, this being 46 per cent of the total area. A very small part of the remainder is used for residential and commercial purposes, the rest being barren mountains, deserts, swamps, and forests. Of the total in farms a little more than one-half was improved, 478,000,000 acres altogether, a per capita average of 5.2 acres; and a little less than one-half was unimproved, 400,000,000 acres altogether, a per capita average of 4.3 acres. The improved land produced not merely food but many kinds of materials, such as cotton, wool, hides, and lumber, while much of the unimproved land was either in farm wood-lots, or in rough range pasture. Of course the kinds and amounts of produce per acre vary with the climate, particularly with sunshine and rainfall; possibly the proportion of the area of the United States that is true desert and infertile mountain land is greater than that of any other equal area in the temperate zones. The actual productive capacity per acre of the lands of America cannot be expressed in a very helpful way as a general average per acre, but each area must be carefully studied in respect to its climate, rainfall, and possibility of irrigation and drainage. It is evident