WHAT IS WEALTH? WHERE DOES IT COME FROM? WHO CREATES IT? Those who have read anything about political economy or _Socialism_ must often have found such thoughts as these rise up in their minds-- How is it some are rich and others poor? How is it some who are able and willing to work can get no work to do? How is it that some who work very hard are so poorly paid? How is it that others who do not work at all have more money than they need? Why is one man born to pay rent and another to spend it? Let us first face the question of why there is so much poverty. This question has been answered in many strange ways. It has been said that poverty is due to drink. But that is not true, for we find many sober people poor, and we find awful poverty in countries where drunkenness is almost unknown. Drink does not cause the poverty of the sober Hindoos. Drink does not cause the poverty of our English women workers. It has been said that poverty is due to "over-production," and it has been said that it is due to "under-consumption." Let us see what these phrases mean. First, over-production. Poverty is due to over-production--of _what_? Of wealth. So we are to believe that the people are poor because they make too much wealth, that they are hungry because they produce too much food, naked because they make too many clothes, cold because they get too much coal, homeless because they build too many houses! Next, under-consumption. We are told that poverty is due to under-consumption--under-consumption of _what_? Of wealth. The people are poor because they do not destroy enough wealth. The way for them to grow rich is by consuming riches. They are to make their cake larger by eating it. Alas! the trouble is that they can get no cake to eat; they can get no wealth to consume. But I think the economists mean that the poor will grow richer if the rich consume more wealth. A rich man has two slaves. The slaves grow corn and make bread. The rich man takes half the bread and eats it. The slaves have only one man's share between two. Will it mend matters here if the rich man "consumes more"? Will it be better for the two slaves if the master takes half the bread left to them, and eats that as well as the bread he has already taken? See what a pretty mess the economists have led us into. The rich have too much and the poor too little. The economist says, let the poor produce less and the rich consume more, and all will be well! Wonderful! But if the poor produce less, there will be less to eat; and if the rich eat more, the share of the poor will be smaller than ever. Let us try another way. Suppose the poor produce more and the rich consume less! Does it not seem likely that then the share of the poor would be bigger?