Reaction: Wealth as collectively defined by many authors, economists, policy makers and specialists, is the total collection of pieces of property that serve to store value. Furthermore, it is expanded to anything that has value because it produces income or could produce income. I am satisfied with this meaning until I’ve read this article in www.economist.com which demanded a more vivid and scrutiny on how wealth is really measured. I’ve been conventionally educated that wealth is classified into three: personal property, monetary savings and capital wealth. However, Sir Partha Dasgupta of Cambridge University argued that these classifications may bring chaotic measures when in the event when wealth of nations is the focus. He is right! What if the real deal is being talked about instead of the stereotyped meaning of wealth? How can we compare China at Japan? USA and Britain? In terms of GNP? Of course not! GNP can never be subjected as a measure of national wealth because there are still resources that are yet to be considered. But its sad to know that economists settled for GNP. Sir Partha designated three kinds of wealth in which a nation is really measured. Signifying the idea of comparative advantage and absolute advantage, the results were unpredictable. To measure wealth an inclusion of three kinds of asset is done: “manufactured”, or physical, capital (machinery, buildings, infrastructure and so on); human capital (the population’s education and skills); and natural capital (including land, forests, fossil fuels and minerals). I believe that this inclusion will really make a picture, not exactly but close to perfect, of how wealthy a nation is. At the onset, Japan as compared to other large economies topped the scale. As of this moment, I am overwhelmed with how the Land of the Rising Sun managed to overcome the problem of having scarce natural