Herewith some clarifications for Mohammad Gani and Roger Sandilands. Mohammad writes: "I am puzzled. Is it possible that real wealth remains exactly the same but the supply of fiat money created by banks increase so that the financial value of the existing wealth increases? How may I be sure that George was mistaken? What happened to the real value and nominal value distinction? In the first place, banks do not create fiat money. Only the central bank does. It is indeed true that the real value of wealth may remain the same whiles the nominal value increases because of the increase of currency or an increase in the price level. Similarly, the real value of wealth may remain the same whiles its nominal value decreases because the price level has fallen. But this is besides the point that wealth is accumulated "useful things." Henry George's point was that because financial assets of savers are the liabilities of borrowers their increased level does not represent increased wealth of the community. He was not concerned with the distinction between real and nominal values. This is the point I argued to be incorrect. For people to make more savings available to borrowers, they first must have earned more income (assuming they have all not decided to go on starvation diets). Furthermore, the borrowers may spend the funds to acquire such useful things as cars, houses, plots of land, trinkets, violins, etc. It is also true that increases in the quantity of money (currency) would tend to increase the nominal value of financial assets. But it is not a necessary requirement. Increases in other means of payment or credit instruments do make it possible for the value of financial assets to increase without an increase in the quantity of money (currency). Thus, the use of credit cards, checkable deposits, bank cards, electronic transfers can enable more transactions to take place -- resulting in increased income and savings (wealth accumulation) -- without the central bank increasing the money supply. This is what is behind Roger Sandilands's point about the changing transactions velocity of money. Now, Roger wants to dispute my point that the increased value of land is a reflection of increased wealth in a community by distinguishing between produced and non-produced goods. But had he attempted to verify my point that "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," he would have found little puzzle. Land values are much higher in the states of New York and California than in Alabama or South Dakota in the USA, higher in the counties around London than some obscure corner of southern England, higher in the UK than in Nigeria, higher in Canada than in Columbia, etc. Does Roger dispute this? Also, Roger misses the point of my clarification with his note that "one person's accumulation of 'wealth' may place the purchase of assets increasingly out of the reach of the non-property-owning classes." Those who don't own (landed) property are just those who haven't acquired enough savings (out of increased incomes) to compete in the market place for them. Let's not confuse the definition of wealth -- accumulated useful things -- with distributional concerns, useful though such concerns may be in some regards. Finally, my Smithian definition of wealth is not violated by the events of the Great Depression, to which Roger refers. I interpret the collapse of confidence in the financial markets and subsequent rush to withdraw bank deposits into cash as a contraction of savings, which later led to decreased investment, production, and income growth. The increased demand for cash (hoarding) is what led to the decrease in money's velocity (k in M = kPy is 1/V in MV = PT or Py). I hope the above clarifications help. They also should make the point that the definition of wealth has little to do with marginal utility, argued by Pat Gunning. The utility (usefulness) of an item of wealth at the margin would only determine how much of it is included in the wealth owner's stock of accumuluated useful things. James Ahiakpor