man's useful or advantageous possessions?

Crit. Precisely; if he has things that injure him, I should regard
these rather as a loss than as wealth.

Soc. It follows apparently that if a man purchases a horse and does
not know how to handle him, but each time he mounts he is thrown and
sustains injuries, the horse is not part of his wealth?

Crit. Not, if wealth implies weal, certainly.

Soc. And by the same token land itself is no wealth to a man who so
works it that his tillage only brings him loss?

Crit. True; mother earth herself is not a source of wealth to us if,
instead of helping us to live, she helps us to starve.

Soc. And by a parity of reasoning, sheep and cattle may fail of being
wealth if, through want of knowledge how to treat them, their owner
loses by them; to him at any rate the sheep and the cattle are not
wealth?

Crit. That is the conclusion I draw.

Soc. It appears, you hold to the position that wealth consists of
things which benefit, while things which injure are not wealth?

Crit. Just so.

Soc. The same things, in fact, are wealth or not wealth, according as