The professor is talking about economics in colonial New England. We know that in colonial New England, the Native Americans, compared to the European colonists, had a far greater knowledge of what resources in the environment could be eaten or made useful. Native Americans used a wide range of resources for economic subsistence, and these resources were simply used by the family that acquired them. Only a few resources were accumulated for the purpose of showing a person's social status, for example, shells, furs, and ornaments of the hunt, excuse me, doctor, singer. But did they, urn, did the Native Americans have a concept of wealth? The Native Americans believed a person's status came more from kinship and personal alliances than from stores of wealth.
Their definition of need was what they needed to survive. So if they had food, clothing, and shelter, they considered themselves wealthy for the European colonists. On the other hand, resources in the environment were seen more as commodities, as goods that could be exchanged in markets. European economies, measured commodities in terms of money values. Abstract equivalence is that could be accumulated and could function as indicators of wealth and social status. So for the colonists need was defined by the markets that bought New England goods. So the Europeans perceived few resources in New England ecosystems, but they saw many commodities for fish timber, which could be sold in the market place for profit number.