I very much appreciate reading Roy Davidson's reproduction of Henry  
George's definition of wealth.  From the beginning of this thread I  
wondered why anyone would still have issues with the definition of  
wealth after having read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776).  I  
thought, isn't wealth simply accumulated "useful things"?  I am of the  
same opinion still. 
 
Surely, Henry George is mistaken in the reproduced quote.  He thinks  
because bonds, mortgages, notes, and bank bills are concurrently assets  
and liabilities that their increased level does not represent an  
increased level of wealth in a community.  But for someone to purchase  
those financial assets, they must have earned income.  Thus these  
financial assets represent the (increased) savings of the community.  
Their purchasers are only making it possible for others to increase  
their own spending beyond their current levels of income.  Indeed, it is  
in high-income communities that more of these financial assets are  
prevalent, not in poor communities. 
 
Similarly, it is not in poor communities that land values are high, but  
in rich -- wealthy -- communities.  The increased land values are a  
reflection of the higher incomes from which the savings (non-consumption  
and cash hoardings) have been spent on acquiring land.  Should incomes  
(and savings) fall in the community, land values also will fall. 
 
Thus, I don't find Henry George's concern with the double entry in the  
accounting process -- assets also having liabilities attached -- as a  
caution against discerning what is wealth to be useful.  For someone to  
borrow, others must have saved.  I think Adam Smith had it right. 
 
James Ahiakpor 
California State University, Hayward