Obviously, not Range Rovers, but perhaps relatively sophisticated manufactured goods? Ovens, refrigerators, washers--standard appliances that are truly labor saving and improve the quality of life. Another level of wealth would be those thing which are entertaining and useful in drawing us closer to the larger world, computers, routers, televisions, radios, etc.

Robert Wright postulated in NonZeroSum that the world was on an evolutionary course toward greater knowledge /complexity, effected, as he saw it by more tightly intergrated transportation and communication mechanisms, those in turn were driven by man's natural propensity to trade. In his view, trade was an underlying mechanism--rather like natural selection--that was a driving force for social evolution.

Of course, as we all know, if we've read our Gould, there's no reason to suggest that evolution has any real 'goal' or purpose. Biology is not necessarily teleological. We just like to think of ourselves as an obvious endpoint, rather than say the horse (I'd personally argue that bacteria could make a greater claim as a 'sucessful' species, but I digress) So arguments about the mechanisms of 'trade' as evolutionary and good and leading to the glorious flat world (qua T. Friedman and M. Friedman) are just that--arguments. There's nothing to suggest that a society--or collection of societies --that manage to trade excessively and create lots of stuff -- is actually better suited for survival than a society that trades less, has less of those things we call 'wealth' but perhaps prioritizes their cultural so that communication and knowledge exchange is highly valued, material exchange, not so much.

So I'm thinking the idea of wealth needs to be understood outside of a commoditized context. Wealth is not necessarily 'a thing', wealth can perhaps better be thought of as a comfortable relation between the physical world and ourselves; and that comfort should be thought of in both pyschological and physical terms. For example I think there are huge pyschic imbalances in the western world view that sees  animals, land and water as a means towards wealth generation and not an end in and of itself. When metatone described the idea of 'subsistence' living, as some how 'not' wealthy, I was struck by how fundamentally locked into the idea of 'wealth as things' we are. I think if we're going to survive as a species (which I am deeply in favor of) we need to move beyond that view.