3 ms·

I understand that. But if I own something that's only notional, it would seem to be saying that I own something that doesn't exist. Which is impossible. Obviou

I understand that. But if I own something that's only notional, it would seem to be saying that I own something that doesn't exist. Which is impossible. Obviously I have claimed a right to $200k of future revenue streams Bob is able to provide me with (plus interest). So ISTM that the 'asset' I would claim to own is Bob himself. I don't own a house or company stock that provides me future revenue streams; I would claim to own a share in a person that provides me with the same. This seems the only logical way to understand the situation.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
You have a claim on something (Bob's labor) that might provide you the principal plus interest that you lent Bob, or it might not. But you do not own it. You lent Bob the money with (hopefully) a clear understanding that in so doing, you could end up not receiving back some or all of the principal and interest. You adjusted the terms in various ways to decrease the chance of that happening, but you did not do this by acquiring ownership of anything.
- geye1234 3y ago
  But again, "Bob's labor" is purely notional. It doesn't exist. I can't have a claim to it as a free-floating entity independent of actually-existing things. If I have a claim on Microsoft's future revenues, this implies that I own a share of Microsoft. If I have a claim on Bob's future productivity, this implies that I own a share of Bob.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    Your rights as a shareholder of Microsoft are strictly delineated. You cannot, for example, walk into a MS office and take one of their computers (or any other equipment). You cannot claim any of their gross revenue, only what the board decides to release as a dividend. You can vote, but only at specific meetings that comes with their own highly evolved set of rules and regulations. You claim is actually fairly vacuous by comparison with most understandings of "ownership". You are literally a "shareholder", not an owner. And so it is with Bob, metaphorically speaking.
    - geye1234 3y ago
      I'm replying a bit late to this... but what you say is true in both cases. Ownership doesn't entail doing whatever you like. It's the same with many things. You may own a mortgage-free house, but you still need to pay property tax; there are restrictions on what you can do within that house (not least criminal law); etc. But this doesn't affect the argument. In fact, it looks as though you agree with my suggestion, which is that being owed money (on a full-recourse basis) by Bob has a very strong resemblance to being a shareholder in Bob.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago

You have a claim on something (Bob's labor) that might provide you the principal plus interest that you lent Bob, or it might not. But you do not own it. You lent Bob the money with (hopefully) a clear understanding that in so doing, you could end up not receiving back some or all of the principal and interest. You adjusted the terms in various ways to decrease the chance of that happening, but you did not do this by acquiring ownership of anything.

geye1234 3y ago
But again, "Bob's labor" is purely notional. It doesn't exist. I can't have a claim to it as a free-floating entity independent of actually-existing things. If I have a claim on Microsoft's future revenues, this implies that I own a share of Microsoft. If I have a claim on Bob's future productivity, this implies that I own a share of Bob.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  Your rights as a shareholder of Microsoft are strictly delineated. You cannot, for example, walk into a MS office and take one of their computers (or any other equipment). You cannot claim any of their gross revenue, only what the board decides to release as a dividend. You can vote, but only at specific meetings that comes with their own highly evolved set of rules and regulations. You claim is actually fairly vacuous by comparison with most understandings of "ownership". You are literally a "shareholder", not an owner. And so it is with Bob, metaphorically speaking.
  - geye1234 3y ago
    I'm replying a bit late to this... but what you say is true in both cases. Ownership doesn't entail doing whatever you like. It's the same with many things. You may own a mortgage-free house, but you still need to pay property tax; there are restrictions on what you can do within that house (not least criminal law); etc. But this doesn't affect the argument. In fact, it looks as though you agree with my suggestion, which is that being owed money (on a full-recourse basis) by Bob has a very strong resemblance to being a shareholder in Bob.