Let me respond briefly to each of the comments on my post. 
 
Roy, I think that you may have missed the point. It seems to me that  
there is a marginal utility revolution's world of difference between the  
"wealth of a nation" and wealth defined in terms of consumer utility.  
Whatever significance one might attach to the phrase "wealth includes  
all objects of value," the problem of telling just who's conception of  
value one should use remains. Amasa lived in a classical world. All this  
changed, I argue, with the marginal utility revolution, which defined  
value in terms of consumer utility. More correctly, it changed for those  
minds that were interested in making arguments for and against market  
intervention. 
 
Regarding your interest in "comments on the significance of precise  
definitions for both wealth and value, I am confused. I understood your  
previous post to say that no precise definition of wealth has been  
developed. I agree. In any case, it seems to me that asking for a  
precise definition of wealth is like asking for a precise definition of  
sexual gratification. 
  
 
Anthony, you also seem to have missed the point. I did not intend to  
write anything relevant to whether utilities are measurable or, at least  
directly, with "modern" welfare economics, theoretical or applied. My  
target was the kinds of arguments that people can legitimately make  
about market intervention, given that economists define value in terms  
of the utility of individuals in the consumer role. I did not mean to  
say anything about whether economists can make a good or bad case, based  
on cost-benefit analysis, for market intervention. I was writing about  
the general unacceptability of arguments that fail to account for  
relevant classes of consumers. 
 
 
 Roger, is it not true that George rejected the main doctrine of the  
marginal utility revolution? I quote from Leland Yeager: 
 
> George did not see how his marginal-productivity theory of the wages  
> of labor applied in a similar way to all factor remunerations (Collier  
> in Andelson 1979:228). Neither did the early Austrians; it was left to  
> Wicksteed to make that contribution in 1894. 
 
 
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_5_60/ai_82469376/pg_2 
 
I know that George was a free trader. So were Adam Smith and David  
Ricardo. But they did not state their arguments entirely in terms of  
consumer utility. 
 
Yes, I can accept that Smith wrote that "[c]onsumption is the sole end  
and purpose of all production." This is suggestive, but do you see any  
greater significance. You are not maintaining that Smith foresaw the  
marginal utility revolution or that he reached the same conclusions, are  
you? 
 
--  
Pat Gunning