3 ms·

A very large number of early economists railed on rentiership (Adam Smith, Herny George, of course Marx). With regard to intellectual property, "ownership" is

A very large number of early economists railed on rentiership (Adam Smith, Herny George, of course Marx). With regard to intellectual property, "ownership" is effectively monopoly because nobody else has the right to produce the good. There might be "inferior" or replacements goods with pop music, but maybe not even that when it comes to things like patents. However I disagree with your assertion that wealth is income generating property. If I store $5mm under my mattress, I have wealth without generating income: the wealth can be used to purchase a large amount of services over a sustained period of time, but it is not generating more wealth. The argument about "private property" is not hard to understand, it is just confusing for many people because of the way we use the term in modern language. It is not only to be compared with public property, but also personal property: for example, the apartment I live in, or the comb I use to brush my hair. Interestingly, personal property is almost by definition a form of wealth which does not produce income/accumulate value. Here's a good explanation:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_versus_private_property https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_ver...

netcan 7y ago
There are all sorts of practical exceptions, but it's still all backed by income generating wealth. That $5mm under your mattress is backed by bonds, income yielding bonds. That's why it's worth $5mm. If the country or bank that issues those bonds were defunct, the money would be worthless because the bonds would no longer be income generating. You could say that gold is nonproductive wealth. Adam Smith sorta argued that gold isn't wealth. You could use a sack of grain as an example.. These examples are theoretical though. IRL, the majority of wealth is equity, bonds, real estate, etc. The value of that property is determined by the income it generates for its owner. If you really had that $5mm, it would probably be in equity, bonds, real estate, and generate a yield... like most wealth in the world.
- ryacko 7y ago
  No, the millions is not backed by bonds. It is a complex topic, but Brazil stopped their inflation by issuing a new currency and implementing price controls. Much of economics depends on expectation, there is nothing inherently logical about any of it.
selrumingo 7y ago
>If I story $5mm under my mattress, I have wealth without generating income. This isn’t true. The $5mm is merely representational. The social dynamics that maintain it’s exchange value, i.e. security, is circumstantial. The security is exercised by way of capital. >personal property is almost by definition a form of wealth which does not produce income/accumulate value. This is ahistorical. In a capitalist society, personal property is a means to produce value all the same. Capitalism comprises relational circumstances that deem your toothbrush, comb, computer, school supplies, and your quiet home all as means to produce value.
int_19h 7y ago
With regard to any property, ownership is a monopoly or oligopoly, so long as more of identical or equivalent good cannot be easily produced. Ownership of land, or natural resources, is the same in that regard.

netcan 7y ago

There are all sorts of practical exceptions, but it's still all backed by income generating wealth. That $5mm under your mattress is backed by bonds, income yielding bonds. That's why it's worth $5mm. If the country or bank that issues those bonds were defunct, the money would be worthless because the bonds would no longer be income generating. You could say that gold is nonproductive wealth. Adam Smith sorta argued that gold isn't wealth. You could use a sack of grain as an example.. These examples are theoretical though. IRL, the majority of wealth is equity, bonds, real estate, etc. The value of that property is determined by the income it generates for its owner. If you really had that $5mm, it would probably be in equity, bonds, real estate, and generate a yield... like most wealth in the world.

ryacko 7y ago
No, the millions is not backed by bonds. It is a complex topic, but Brazil stopped their inflation by issuing a new currency and implementing price controls. Much of economics depends on expectation, there is nothing inherently logical about any of it.

selrumingo 7y ago

>If I story $5mm under my mattress, I have wealth without generating income. This isn’t true. The $5mm is merely representational. The social dynamics that maintain it’s exchange value, i.e. security, is circumstantial. The security is exercised by way of capital. >personal property is almost by definition a form of wealth which does not produce income/accumulate value. This is ahistorical. In a capitalist society, personal property is a means to produce value all the same. Capitalism comprises relational circumstances that deem your toothbrush, comb, computer, school supplies, and your quiet home all as means to produce value.

int_19h 7y ago

With regard to any property, ownership is a monopoly or oligopoly, so long as more of identical or equivalent good cannot be easily produced. Ownership of land, or natural resources, is the same in that regard.