Skip to main content

Commons Futurity pg. 420-423 - intangible property

 The next subsection we are covering is (7) intangible property.  Commons felt that Macleod made a mistake by calling intangible property as incorporeal property.  He then goes through a series of definitions to clarify what Macleod meant:

 “annual income for ever”  = the expected products for one's own use or the money income from future sales of the products, or future “ground rent.”

 “His credit” =  is not a particular credit against a debtor, but is the general “good credit” of a business man, that is, the good-will of investors and bankers who are expected to be willing to lend to him by buying his promises to pay. 

“The good-will” = expected profitable transactions with customers. 

“The practice” = the good-will of a lawyer's clients or a physician's patients, willing to pay for his services. 

Copyrights and patents  = expectations of preferential or monopolistic sales-incomes. 

“The shares”  = commercial company are the present value of expected dividends or other opportunities to make a profit over and above all expenses. 

“Tolls” and “ferries,” = expected preferential prices arising from franchises. (Commons, pg 421, 1934)

Commons says these are all examples of intangible property which is contrasted to incorporeal property which is the expectation of a debt payment at a certain point in the future.  The expected profit or income from intangible property has no set date or amount.

Commons uses the example of buying the physical equipment of a company for scrap value - the tangible or corporeal property versus buying the company's name and good will and right to operate it for a project which is the intangible property. A key term he uses is that intangible property is "expected participation" by all interests.  

Commons also translates this into Hohfeldian legal language. Debt may be owed to a company as incorporeal property or a legal duty in the form of accounts receivables. The state may have a duty of non-interference in certain business transactions. Expectations of customer and worker contracts are intangible property and can be both a legal duty and legal right depending on the relationship.

This whole section again consists of Commons trying to clear up and rehabilitate Macleod from his confusions and double meaning mistakes.







Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Commons Futurity pg.526-528

Commons Futurity VII. The Margin for Profit pg 526-528  In this section, Commons turns to thinking about a specific aspect of modern banker capitalism addressing the question of profit's role in the economy. He starts with some terminology regarding profit share - the share of national income that goes to profit earners and the profit margin - the dynamic aspect that drives a going concern forward. We then move into another set of terms that are rate of profit and profit yield.  The rate of profit is related to the par value of stock and yield is related to market value of stock or outstanding equity. The social question to Commons is what the role of profit in keeping the overall economy and does society or community pay too much or too little for this service. Economists have long thought about the role of profits in driving the economy up or down.  Commons believes there are profit share theories and profit margin theories as two diction categories in economic thinking...

Commons Futurity pg. 510-526 VI. The Transactional System of Money and Value

VI. The Transactional System of Money and Value  The overall objective of this section is to understand money and its role and relationship to economic value in the institutional economics of John R. Commons. Commons writes that, "It is because Value is a two-dimensional concept (omitting futurity)—with two different causations, the one being the scarcity-value, or price, determined by supply and demand, the other being the greater or smaller output of use-value which will be created in the labor process that follows the transaction. " (Commons, pg. 517, 1934). The point here is again Commons is fighting against what he observes are the limits of other definitions of economic value such as simply individual utility or the classical case of exchange value only.   In this section, Commons make an important move on pages 520 and 521. He states that for a thing to be objective it needs to be independent of any objective will as opposed to other competing definitions. He will ...

Commons commenting on Marx and Proudhoun

Commons provides a short discussion to contrast Karl Marx (communism) and Pierre Joseph Proudhon (anarchism) in Institutional Economics.  His point in writing about these two authors is to continue to flesh out the idea of theory of efficiency versus an economic theory of value. This is section eight in the chapter of efficiency and scarcity pages 366 to 378.  Commons wants us to understand that Ricardo and later Marx led us to a theory of efficiency and not a theory of value.  This is not in itself a negative as a theory of efficiency is important to Commons. However, Commons wants us to understand that a theory of efficiency as espoused by Ricardo and Marx is only half the story of a theory of value.  Marx is the real part of the story in this section with some attention paid to Proudhon. As usual, Commons points out both the advanced and faults in the various thinkers he is addressing. Marx, Commons writes, did improve on Ricardo and others by replacing a subjec...