Plato has much to say of wealth, though he deals with it strictly from the standpoint of the moralist. We look in vain for a clear definition, or for a consistent distinction of economic wealth from other goods. His terms are πλοῦτος, used of both material and spiritual wealth; χρήματα, often interpreted literally of “useful things,” as the basis of the subjective doctrine of value discussed above; κτήματα, “possessions,” and such words as χρυσός and ἀργύριον. His use of these terms, especially the first, is ambiguous. At times he means material goods only; again, like Ruskin, he includes every human good, intellectual and moral as well;[80] again he means “excessive wealth.”[81] As a result of his conception of value, he includes in material wealth all those objects that depend for their worth upon wise use and character in the possessor.[82] Material wealth is regularly placed last by Plato, as inferior to all other goods of soul or body, a mere means, and not an end in itself,[83] for virtue does not come from property, but property and all other goods from virtue.[84] Material goods should be the last thing in one’s thought,[85] and the fact that people universally put them first is the cause of many ills to state and individual alike.[86] Wealth is not blind, if only it follows wisdom.[87] The things usually called goods are not rightly so named, unless the possessor be just and worthy.[88] To the base, on the other hand, they are the greatest evil.[89] In all of this, Plato is the forerunner of Ruskin, with his characteristic assertions: “Only so much as one can use is wealth, beyond that is illth”; and “Wealth depends also on vital power in the possessor.”[90] Plato especially inveighs against excessive wealth and luxury.[91] Men are urged not to lay up riches for their children, since great wealth is of no use to them or the state.[92] The prime object of good legislation should not be, as is commonly supposed, to make the state as rich as possible,[93] since excessive wealth and luxury decrease productive efficiency,[94] are incompatible with the highest character or happiness, being based on both unjust acquisition (κτῆσις) and unjust expenditure (ἀναλώματα),[95] produce degeneration in individual and nation,[96] and are the direct cause of war[97] and civic strife.[98] Were it feasible, he would prefer to go back to the simpler life of earlier times, before luxury and the inordinate desire for riches had so dominated all society.[99] Of course he realizes that such a return is impossible, but he has little hope of any other escape from the evils. He is thus led to express the belief that the fewer wants the better, a doctrine common also to Ruskin, Carlyle, and Thoreau.[100]