Ancient Life

Xenophon’s Oikonomikos Circa BC Estate Management

Addressing Critobulus he said: Tell me, Critobulus, is "economy," like the words "medicine," "carpentry," "building," "smithying," "metal-working," and so forth, the name of a particular kind of knowledge or science? Crit. Yes, I think so. Soc. And as, in the case of the arts just named, we can state the proper work or function of each, can we (similarly) state the proper work and function of economy? Crit. It must, I should think, be the business of the good economist at any rate to manage his own house or estate well. Soc. And supposing another man's house to be entrusted to him, he would be able, if he chose, to manage it as skilfully as his own, would he not? since a man who is skilled in carpentry can work as well for another as for himself: and this ought to be equally true of the good economist? Crit. Yes, I think so, Socrates. Soc. Then there is no reason why a proficient in this art, even if he does not happen to possess wealth of his own, should not be paid a salary for managing a house, just as he might be paid for building one? Crit. None at all: and a large salary he would be entitled to earn if, after paying the necessary expenses of the estate entrusted to him, he can create a surplus and improve the property. Soc. Well! and this word "house," what are we to understand by it? the domicile merely? or are we to include all a man's possessions outside the actual dwelling- place?

Aristotle Nichomachean Ethics On Politics

Of the art of acquisition then there is one kind which by nature is a part of the management of a household, in so far as the art of household management must either find ready to hand, or itself provide, such things necessary to life, and useful for the community of the family or state, as can be stored. They are the elements of true riches; for the amount of property which is needed for a good life is not unlimited… But there is a boundary fixed, just as there is in the other arts; for the instruments of any art are never unlimited, either in number or size, and riches may be defined as a number of instruments to be used in a household or in a state…. There is another variety of the art of acquisition which is commonly and rightly called an art of wealth-getting, and has in fact suggested the notion that riches and property have no limit. Being nearly connected with the preceding, it is often identified with it. But though they are not very different, neither are they the same. The kind already described is given by nature, the other is gained by experience and art.

But the art of wealth-getting which consists in household management, on the other hand, has a limit; the unlimited acquisition of wealth is not its business. And, therefore, in one point of view, all riches must have a limit; nevertheless, as a matter of fact, we find the opposite to be the case…. The source of the confusion is the near connection between the two kinds of wealth-getting; in either case, the instrument is the same, although the use is different: accumulation is the end in the one case, but there is a further end in the other. Hence some persons are led to believe that getting wealth is the object of household management, and the whole idea of their lives is that they ought either to increase their money without limit, or at any rate not to lose it. The origin of this disposition in men is that they are intent upon living only, and not upon living well; and, as their desires are unlimited they also desire that the means of gratifying them should be without limit. Those who do aim at a good life seek the means of obtaining bodily pleasures; and, since the enjoyment of these appears to depend on property, they are absorbed in getting wealth: and so there arises the second species of wealth-getting. For, as their enjoyment is in excess, they seek an art which produces the excess of enjoyment; and, if they are not able to supply their pleasures by the art of getting wealth, they try other arts, using in turn every faculty in a manner contrary to nature.

Old Testament – Amos Listen to this, you who grind the destitute and plunder the humble, you who say, ‘When will the new moon be past so that we may sell our corn? When will the Sabbath be past so that we may open our wheat again, giving short measure in the bushel and taking overweight in the silver, tilting the scales fraudulently and selling the dust of the wheat; that we may buy the poor for silver and the destitute for a pair of shoes?’

Thomas of Chobham ( ) Commerce is to buy something cheaper for the purpose of selling it dearer. And this is all right for laymen to do, even if they do not add any improvement…. For otherwise there would have been great need in many regions, since merchants carry that which is plentiful in one place to another place where the same thing is scarce…. Merchants may well charge the value of their labor and transport and expenses.

Thomas of Aquinas It is altogether sinful to have recourse to deceit in order to sell a thing for more than its just price, because this is to deceive one’s neighbor so as to injure him

But apart from fraud…. We may speak of buying and selling… when a man has great need of a certain object, while an other man will suffer if he be without it…. It will be lawful to sell a thing for maore than it is worth in itself, though the price paid be not more than it is worth to the owner….

The just price of things is not fixed with mathematical precision, but depends on a kind of estimate, so that a slight addition or subtraction would not seem to destroy the equality of justice.

Exchange of things is twofold; one, natural as it were, and necessary… to satisfy the needs of life. Such like trading… does not belong to tradesmen, but rather to housekeepers…. The other kind of exchange… is for profit…. The former kind of exchange is commendable because it supplies a natural need: but the latter is justly deserving blame…. Nevertheless gain which is the end of trading… does not, in itself, connote anything sinful.