No, it’s conflating ownership with potential-ownership. The idea is, I can store apples at the grocery store or in my pantry—there is basically no chance that I will go to pick up my apples at the grocery store and they won’t be available for sale, so it’s just trivial that I haven’t spent the money on them yet.
It seems pretty silly to conflate the two when ownership implies that it is no longer an opportunity cost to acquire “your” possession, as the cost has already been paid. If you have a million dollars, you potentially own any of all the million dollar possessions on the market, but only one of them at most. Owning all of them would be very different.
Subjectively, though, I for one get that feeling. It’s like “within my reach” and “owned by me” were equivalent to my brain on some level. And, when, once I’ve made my purchase, I find my money diminished by that same amount, I find that I feel cheated, somehow. Like accumulated money should work like an access clearance threshold, rather than a reservoir of resources across space and time. Which is economically absurd...
None of those qualify as “potential-ownership”, they are a shared-access resource.
Is there something about “potential-ownership” that gives it a different meaning to “an item that I could potentially buy and thereby become the owner of”?
My recollection and interpretation was buying/objects not renting/services. Picking an object like a jet ski that is probably more often rented than bought was probably a misleading choice of example, sorry.
Anyway, it’s not up to me to clarify anymore—gwern found the original quote, so you can debate the interpretation of that rather than of my half-recollected paraphrasing. :-)
No, it’s conflating ownership with potential-ownership. The idea is, I can store apples at the grocery store or in my pantry—there is basically no chance that I will go to pick up my apples at the grocery store and they won’t be available for sale, so it’s just trivial that I haven’t spent the money on them yet.
It seems pretty silly to conflate the two when ownership implies that it is no longer an opportunity cost to acquire “your” possession, as the cost has already been paid. If you have a million dollars, you potentially own any of all the million dollar possessions on the market, but only one of them at most. Owning all of them would be very different.
Subjectively, though, I for one get that feeling. It’s like “within my reach” and “owned by me” were equivalent to my brain on some level. And, when, once I’ve made my purchase, I find my money diminished by that same amount, I find that I feel cheated, somehow. Like accumulated money should work like an access clearance threshold, rather than a reservoir of resources across space and time. Which is economically absurd...
The comment I was replying to said
None of those qualify as “potential-ownership”, they are a shared-access resource.
Is there something about “potential-ownership” that gives it a different meaning to “an item that I could potentially buy and thereby become the owner of”?
I’m confused. How are jet skis relevantly different from apples?
From the context, roystgnr meant renting jet skis for a day, rather than owning and maintaining them. You can hardly do that with apples.
No, really.
(emphasis added)
Buy, not rent.
I interpreted it as buying a service, not an object, but it’s up to roystgnr to clarify.
My recollection and interpretation was buying/objects not renting/services. Picking an object like a jet ski that is probably more often rented than bought was probably a misleading choice of example, sorry.
Anyway, it’s not up to me to clarify anymore—gwern found the original quote, so you can debate the interpretation of that rather than of my half-recollected paraphrasing. :-)