4 ms·
Stocks used to be owned by whoever owned the physical share certificate. I think the difference is more that paintings still have some intrinsic value (though o
by pxeger1 2y ago
Stocks used to be owned by whoever owned the physical share certificate. I think the difference is more that paintings still have some intrinsic value (though only aesthetic) even if other people don’t think they’re valuable.
- jameshart 2y agoRight, the value in holding the stock certificate is that it provides the bearer with entitlements to control and a share of the assets of an intangible thing - a company. The value in holding a painting is that you own some aesthetically arranged atoms.
- shalmanese 2y agoBut there's art that exists in freeports whose only value is that it's moved from locker A to locker B as a part of a financial transaction. Definitely, not all art is a security but it's an interesting question, both philosophically and legally whether there can be some class of art that functions so close to a security that security provisions should apply.