The doctrine of sufficiency centers around the concept of a person having "enough" of something. Compared to theories of equality, which focus on calculating equal shares, determining "how much a person needs of it in order to have enough" is generally more difficult. The concept of "having enough" itself is considered considerably less transparent and intelligible than the concept of "having an equal share". This makes a theory of sufficiency much harder to articulate than a theory of equality. Despite the difficulties in articulating and applying it, the sources suggest that the doctrine of sufficiency is a preferable alternative to economic egalitarianism, which is deemed incorrect. The widespread appeal of economic egalitarianism has, unfortunately, overshadowed the importance of a systematic investigation into the analytical and theoretical issues raised by the concept of "having enough". It is noted that precisely what the doctrine of sufficiency means and what its application entails is far from self-evident, but this lack of clarity is not considered a good reason to adopt equality instead. Within the doctrine of sufficiency, the notion of "enough" signifies meeting a standard rather than reaching a limit. To say that a person has enough money means, more or less, that they are content, or that it is reasonable for them to be content, with the amount of money they currently possess. This contentment with the amount of money held implies that the person does not (or cannot reasonably) view whatever is distressing or unsatisfying in their life as being a result of having too little money. In other words, if a person is, or reasonably ought to be, content with their financial situation, they do not (and cannot reasonably) believe that having more (or even less) money would significantly alleviate their unhappiness with the way their life is progressing.