Our money, our bike, our computer programs, and our right to enter a library are all parts of our wealth — assets we possess. But what about our abilities? Are they pieces of wealth too? Economists have long struggled with this question. Some define wealth as a kind of ability, while others exclude abilities altogether from the concept of wealth.

In this presentation, I aim to reconcile two seemingly incompatible theses:

1. The more abilities we have, the wealthier we are.

2. Abilities are not themselves pieces of wealth.

To that end, I will draw on two distinctions. First, the distinction between entities that are pieces of wealth and entities that, while not themselves pieces of wealth, confer value on pieces of wealth. Second, inspired by Hernando de Soto, the distinction between dead and living wealth.

My claim is that our abilities increase our wealth not by adding new items to what we own, but by activating or transforming existing assets — turning dead wealth into living wealth. For example, learning to play a violin we have inherited does not increase the number of things we own, but it does increase the value of what we own.

I will conclude by suggesting that the distinction between dead and living capacities has broader implications beyond economic ontology — in particular, for how we understand the nature of artifacts.