Obviously, the foregoing discussion leads to the conclusion that wealth and welfare are not necessarily identical terms. Any social group that is compelled, for example, to consume great quantities of coal for heating purposes must of necessity be wealthier than a similar group more favored by nature, if the two groups are to share equally in the satisfaction of wants. A New England mechanic must necessarily be wealthier than his Florida brother if during the year the two are to have exactly the same wants supplied, for he must consume wealth in the form of fuel, warm clothing, and heat-producing foods, to enjoy exactly the same comforts which nature in warm climates furnishes freely and without limit. The same principle is involved in comparisons of the North and the South just prior to the beginning of the Civil War. The value of the northern hay crop occupies a large place in these comparisons, but scarcely ever does one find any mention of the value of the year-round grazing lands of the South. The mere fact that the North cured more than a hundred million dollars' worth of hay each year is ample evidence of the presence of wealth in that section, but it does not prove that its welfare was increased over what it would have been had the climate permitted the stock to graze in the fields during the winter months. An abundance of natural gifts ordinarily produces prosperity and a relatively high degree of human welfare, which may or may not be accompanied by great wealth, either social or individual. Consequently, in judging the well-being of a large social group, such as a state or a section of the United States, a mere knowledge of the wealth of that section or state is not sufficient. We must first know something of the gifts of nature which it enjoys.