If, now, we were to estimate the resources of an entire people, or even of the world, by summing up the value in exchange of their several component parts, many very important elements would be left out of the account entirely; as for instance, harbors, navigable streams, numberless relations which have, indeed, no value in exchange whatever, but which are of the highest importance, because promotive of the economy of the nation. The same may be said of made roads of every description, the politico-economical value of which may be much greater than the value in exchange of their stock, than their cost of production etc. The increase of the value in exchange of any of the branches of the resources of a physical or legal person contributes towards really enriching the nation or the world, only in case that the increased value in exchange is based on an increased utility in quality or quantity. Should an earthquake suddenly dry up a number of our springs, and thus give value in exchange to the drinking water from the remaining ones, we should, indeed, witness the introduction of a new object into the list of exchangeable goods; the owners of springs would be able to command a larger portion of the national resources, but at the expense of the rest of the population; and the whole country would have become poorer in goods by the catastrophe. Even the value in exchange of the national resources would not be increased; for all other goods, which, hitherto, as compared with water, had an unlimited capacity for exchange, would lose just as much of that capacity as water had gained, as compared with them.(94) On the other hand, if a new mineral spring should be discovered, the great value in use of the water of which gave it value in exchange, the resources of the nation would be really increased, not only in point of utility, but in exchange value; for no other goods, formerly known, would, in consequence of the discovery, lose in their exchange power.(95) Section IX. Wealth. The possession of large and also of potentially lasting resources; objectively, such resources themselves, we call wealth. But it must be large in a two-fold sense; large as compared with the rational wants of its possessor, and large, also, as compared with the resources of other people, especially with the resources of those in the same condition of life. To be called rich, it is not enough “to have a sufficiency,” (the individual side); it is necessary to have more than others.(96) If all men were possessed of a great deal, but all of an exactly equal amount, each would be compelled, it may be conjectured, to be his own chimney-sweep, his own scavenger and “boot-black.” And how could anyone, then, be properly called wealthy? This is the social side of the idea of wealth.(97) Hence, a person, with the same resources, might be very wealthy in a provincial town, while, in the capital, he could enjoy only moderate comfort.(98)