Rent-over-own actually applies to capital too. Think about bitcoin mining contracts or timeshare vacation homes. The defining characteristic of “owning” capital is participating in the risk of catastrophic loss, not physical possession or operational control.
Conversation
Ownership is not actually a necessary concept. De jure ownership (“name on title”) is a legal fiction that you can easily chip away at via secondary fictions that distribute risk of name-on-title in a zillion ways. Insurance is paying someone to take over a risk fraction for eg.
1
2
12
Even a scheme as elemental as say land titles in a purely Georgist/LVT regime is not a pristine embodiment of “ownership”. You can bolt creative rent-like schemes on top of it.
1
2
7
At the other limit, “public” ownership of a commons is not a necessary relationship with an asset but a set of mutual expectations among humans about human behavior in relation to that asset. You don’t sue squirrels for trespassing on “your” land for example.
Replying to
As a commenter points out, rent-over-own really only works for standardized things. This is actually the risk point in disguise. For standardized things there is no information asymmetry that can be exploited *at that level* to informationally distinguish renter and owner
1
1
7
