There are multiple ways of looking at a company’s value. What you describe is usually called “enterprise value”. Other measures of value are the market value of

There are multiple ways of looking at a company’s value. What you describe is usually called “enterprise value”. Other measures of value are the market value of equity and the book value of equity. All are valid and useful for different things. I do think the market value of equity is used a lot more often than enterprise value, because market value of equity measures the value owned by those (the shareholders) who control the company. Similarly, assets and equity are both legitimate measures of the wealth of a household. If you are looking at wealth as a way to generate income, equity is very relevant: if you own a house worth $1 million with no debt, and the rental equivalent is $50,000 per year, then you’ve saved $50,000 a year in rent compared to a counterfactual where you don’t own a house. But if you have $50,000 per year in mortgage payments, you are, in many ways (not counting capital gains/losses and the benefits/costs of owning vs renting), not much better off than a non-homeowner who simply rents. The point the original article makes is that if you want to add up the wealth of the poor, equity is a bad measure.