Economics

I once heard him discuss the subject of estate management in the following manner. Tell me, Critobulus, is estate management the name of a branch of knowledge, like medicine, smithing and carpentry?I think so, replied Critobulus.

And can we say what the function of estate management is, just as we can say what is the function of each of these arts?Well, I suppose that the business of a good estate manager is to manage his own estate well.

Yes, and in case he were put in charge of another man’s estate, could he not, if he chose, manage it as well as he manages his own? Anyone who understands carpentry can do for another exactly the same work as he does for himself; and so, I presume, can a good estate manager.I think so, Socrates.

Is it possible, then, for one who understands this art, even if he has no property of his own, to earn money by managing another man’s estate, just as he might do by building him a house?Yes, of course; and he would get a good salary if, after taking over an estate, he continued to pay all outgoings, and to increase the estate by showing a balance.But what do we mean now by an estate?

Is it the same thing as a house, or is all property that one possesses outside the house also part of the estate?Well, I think that even if the property is situated in different cities, everything a man possesses is part of his estate.

Do not some men possess enemies?Of course; some in fact possess many.Shall we include their enemies in their possessions?It would be ridiculous, surely, if one actually received a salary for increasing the number of a man’s enemies!

Because, you know, we supposed a man’s estate to be the same as his property.To be sure—meaning thereby the good things that he possesses. No, of course I don’t call any bad thing that he may possess property.You seem to use the word property of whatever is profitable to its owner.Certainly; but what is harmful I regard as loss rather than wealth.

Yes, and consequently if a man buys a horse and doesn’t know how to manage it, and so keeps on getting thrown and injuring himself by trying to ride it, the horse is not wealth to him, I presume?No, if we assume that wealth is a good thing.It follows that land is not wealth either to a man who works it in such a way that his work results in loss.To be sure: even land is not wealth if it makes us starve instead of supporting us.

And the same will hold good of sheep, will it not? if a man loses through ignorance of sheep farming, his sheep too will not be wealth to him?I think not.It seems, then, that your view is this: what is profitable is wealth, what is harmful is not wealth.Quite so.