Jacob reiterates his message. It is not the wealth, but the social divisiveness of wealth that is the sin. It is not the sheer accumulation, but the presumption of superiority on the basis of accumulation that is a gross sin.
Social and Economic: Jacob's solution to the problem of wealth is an egalitarian one. Jacob supposes that the wealth will be distributed as it is needed. Even though this solution is given in the context of a much less complex economy than our own, the concept of generosity still maintains. One may avoid the sin attached to wealth if one does not consider oneself superior because of the wealth. The demonstration of humility comes in the distribution of one's capabilities for the assistance of the less fortunate.
Aside from the moral lesson, however, there is important social information in Jacob's description of the ways in which wealth might be used. Jacob gives us four categories, and three of them are very easily understood. We comprehend what it means to clothe the naked. We understand what it means to feed the hungry (though in Jacob's village this would almost assuredly be directed to the itinerant outsider, as other mechanisms would have fed those within the village). We also have some kind of understanding of what it might mean to administer relief to the sick and the afflicted - although where we think of medicines, it is most likely that this would simply mean care, as medicine was certainly not in an advanced state.
The one that is fascinating, however, is that Jacob suggests that wealth might be used to "liberate the captive." With the stated history of the Nephites in conflict with the Lamanites (see, for example, 2 Nephi 5:34; Jacob 1:10) we can safely assume that this is a very real, and not a figurative possibility.
The taking of captives become a central facet of Mesoamerican warfare. Schele and Freidel describe the later customs of the Classic Maya:
"The presence of this captive documents the crucial role played by war and captive taking in early Maya kingship. The Maya fought not to kill their enemies but to capture them. Kings did not take their captives easily, but in aggressive hand-to-hand combat. A defeated ruler or lord was stripped of his finery, bound, and carried back to the victorious city to be tortured and sacrificed in public rituals. The prestige value a royal captive held for a king was high, and often a king would link the names of his important captives to his own throughout his life. Captives were symbols of the prowess and potency of a ruler and his ability to subjugate his enemies." (Schele, Linda, and David Freidel. A Forest of Kings. New York, William Morrow and Company, Inc. 1990, p. 143).
Of course the evidence that Schele and Freidel are examining are both much later than Jacob's discourse, and deal with politically important captives. Later Mesoamerican practice still took captives, but more for their sacrificial value that their ransom. Nevertheless, Jacob at least presumes that ransom is an option for captured Nephites.