Wealth & Money Quote by Nassau William Senior

Senior is bottling an awkward truth into a sentence so dry it feels self-evident: people want more stuff for less pain. In early political economy, that move is strategic. By treating desire for wealth and avoidance of sacrifice as near-universal, he clears the ground for economics to present itself as a science of predictable behavior rather than a moral argument about virtue, greed, or the good life. The intent is not to praise acquisitiveness but to render it usable: a stable premise from which wages, prices, and policy can be deduced.

The subtext is sharper. “As little sacrifice as possible” quietly expands “cost” beyond money into time, risk, discomfort, even dignity. It’s a precursor to the idea that incentives, not sermons, organize society. Senior’s era - industrializing Britain, with debates over poor laws, factory labor, and the legitimacy of profit - demanded a language that could justify harsh outcomes without sounding cruel. If everyone is maximizing, then inequality can be framed as the arithmetic of choices and constraints, not the moral failure of a system.

What makes the line work is its rhetorical simplicity: it’s a claim that dares you to deny it. But that confidence smuggles in a controversial flattening of human motives. “Articles of wealth” reduces aspiration to commodities; “every person” papers over class power, coercion, and the fact that some people “sacrifice” because the alternative is hunger. Senior’s premise is influential precisely because it’s both plausible and conveniently amnesiac about who sets the terms of sacrifice.