Posted: May 13, 2019 12:28 am
by Thommo
There are two meanings of "is" in the English language:

"Money is wealth" could mean "Money is identical to wealth", in this usage, you're right, they aren't identical, there's a lot more to wealth than money.

"Money is wealth" could mean "Money is an example, or type, of wealth", in this usage the same would not be true. Money is wealth in this usage. One way of storing your wealth (in our society, in our time, or in times and societies like the ones we live in) is money. In fact it's arguably the principal and most important example of wealth for all of modern history. Without ever being the whole picture.

The problem with saying "money is not wealth" is that there was no context which would restrict the meaning to the first usage of "is", and without context the standard convention of English is that a rejection covers all possible definitions of a term. We have seen this a lot on these boards with people objecting that most of us members aren't true atheists™ because we don't reject God and one definition of atheism™ is the rejection of God. Whilst that is true, it is beside the point, as we are atheists by the broader definition.

I'm not sure that the first of these is really up for debate here, but assuming that's what you mean, I agree. Money is not identical to wealth.