Wealth is power. It gives its owner an influence which he otherwise would not possess. It manifests itself in politics, government, industry, education, and even in religious affairs. The owner of wealth, other things being equal, is usually preferred over his neighbor. He receives at the hands of society a distinction which few individuals are able to forego. Most people speak in more or less awe of a Rockefeller, a Morgan, or a Vanderbilt. They also defer to the local magnate. They take pride in elevating men who have succeeded in a large way financially. Consequently, the desire for the power, which wealth brings, drives men, usually those who already have large financial holdings, to exert themselves to accumulate more wealth. Thus, we see that this desire is one of the chief motives back of economic activity.

Of the four motives which we have examined, the last, the desire for power, is by far the most questionable; and in it he grave dangers to society. No one can seriously question the purity of the motives that drive men to conserve their lives and to get the comforts that make life worth living. Also even the most serious-minded can afford to smile indulgently on those who crave luxuries and ostentation. Society cannot, however, look with indifference on the power that can be gathered into the hands of a few through the accumulation of wealth. Not long ago a prominent New York banker contended in a meeting of economists that it mattered little to society if a few men held practically all of the wealth of the United States. The basis of his contention was that these few could not possibly consume their wealth, and, consequently, that it would eventually find its way back to the masses. Clearly, he did not understand that society was keenly interested in the power and influence which the wealth itself would place in the hands of these few men.