James Ahiakpor thinks that rising land values and booming stock markets 
reflect rising incomes and savings. Thus he thinks wealth increases when 
land values and stock markets rise. 
 
This is to ignore the obvious fact that the transactions velocity of money 
(Vt) can jump around wildly (along with the prices of assets) as agents buy 
and sell with increased frenzy. 
 
This has little to do with the production of wealth in the Adam Smith or 
Henry George sense. Leaving aside their treatment of services, their 
definitions correspond essentially to the value of current production, or 
currently produced "wealth", or the physical part of GDP (equal to the 
income velocity of money, Vy,  multiplied by the supply of money). Their 
measure of the _stock_ of wealth would include the current value of things 
that have been produced in the past (this includes buildings, but not land). 
 
Their definitions of currently produced wealth and of the stock of wealth 
both exclude transfer payments (including the value of land qua land, 
exclusive of produced improvements), in which one person's accumulation of 
"wealth" may place the purchase of assets increasingly out of the reach of 
the non-property-owning classes. 
 
Money multiplied by its transactions velocity (M.Vt) can, and often does, 
move in the opposite direction to money times its income velocity (M.Vy). 
And often also in the opposite direction to the community's real savings and 
investment. Think back to July - October 1929! 
 
Roger Sandilands