in a household or a state; capable of accumulation (θησαυρισμός); limited in extent (οὐκ ἄπειρος).543 According to Mill,544 from the “economic” standpoint, wealth is “all useful and agreeable things” of a “material nature” possessing “exchange value”; and, to have exchange value, they must be “capable of accumulation.”
In comparing these two definitions, it should be recognized at the outset that Aristotle’s term “genuine” does not mean “truly economic,” as it might in Mill, but rather “legitimate wealth” as distinguished from that gained from false finance (χρηματιστική);545 also that his “necessary to life” and “limited in extent” are not used in the economic but in the moral sense, as opposed to luxury and extreme interest in money-making. Mill’s “all useful and agreeable things” presents a marked contrast to this in spirit. Aristotle’s “useful” means “what subserves the final good” (πρὸς ἀγαθὴν ζωήν), while Mill’s means “things that give sensations of comfort or pleasure.” Thus Aristotle’s wealth is necessarily limited, while Mill’s is unlimited, since, as Barker observes, “only an infinity of wealth can satisfy an infinity of need.”546 It will be seen from the following discussion, however, that Aristotle includes more than “necessary things” in his category of economic wealth. He does not specify “material things,” as does Mill, but it seems probable that this is his meaning.547 In all the passages where he enumerates the different kinds of wealth, only material things are included, except slaves, who are counted as mere tools.548 One of these passages specifically excludes intellectual wealth by defining property as a “separable instrument.”549 The use of the term for value (ἀξία) probably implies the same limitation.550 Though Aristotle does not mention exchange value specifically, it is clearly implied in his definition. “Things useful for the association of a state” and things “capable of accumulation” must have exchange value, thus excluding illimitable utilities such as air and light.551 His use of κτῆμα, “possession,” and his recognition of cost of production and economic demand as the main factors in determining value,552 are further evidence of this. Moreover, as seen above, in the Ethics, he clearly makes exchange value an attribute of all wealth.553