We're Actually Only "Renting" What We Think We "Own"

Oftwominds.com‘s eclectic range of timely topics include finance, economy, stocks, housing, Asia, energy, long-term trends, social issues, urban planning, work/tradecraft, health/diet/fitness, sustainability, Les Paul guitars and The Great Transformation ahead: www.oftwominds.com/blog.html.

In many cases, we’re actually only “renting” the functional / monetary value of what we “own,” and that makes the value of “ownership” far less certain than we might imagine.

What we “own” seems straightforward, but it’s actually slippery. Yes, we own what we have a deed or copyright for, but we only “rent” the valuation the market assigns to what we own.

Consider the gambling chip in our pocket issued by a casino. Its market value within the casino is, say, $100. If the casino suddenly declares bankruptcy, we still “own” the physical round of plastic, but we no longer “own” any monetary value, as the chip is now worthless beyond its collectable value, which is likely nil. It turns out we only “rented” the market valuation, which is dependent on conditions outside our control.

This confusion about what we actually “own” becomes visible when asset bubbles pop. As an asset bubble inflates, we naturally feel we “own” wondrously expanding wealth. But actually all we own is the stock shares or the house or the futures contract. Since the market valuation is set by conditions outside our control, we’re only “renting” the market valuation via our ownership.

Once the bubble pops, our great wealth has vanished, even though we still “own” the asset.

Buying assets with borrowed money generates additional slipperiness. As long as our liability / debt remains lower than the market value, our ownership has monetary value. But should the bubble pop and the market value drop to the point that our debt / liabilities exceed the market value of the asset, then it’s revealed that we only “rented” the monetary value, because the conditions that set that value are outside our control.

Here is a chart of total debt, public and private. We may have a claim on a pension or an entitlement, but if the debt absorbs all the income, then our claim wasn’t ownership. And if our liabilities exceed the market value of the asset we own, we own nothing of monetary value.

We all know that the digital device we “own” is a brick unless we “rent” the software, which we “own” until the controlling corporation declares it obsolete. Once again, the functional and monetary value of what we “own” is outside our direct control because those values are controlled by others.

Compare this to a tool like a hammer, whose functionality is not controlled by anyone but the owner.

Which brings us to AI, another slippery manifestation of “ownership.” Most AI tools are rented from a corporation via a monthly fee, and programs that are downloaded and “owned” are still controlled by the issuing company in terms of their functionality.

But we own the content we create with AI, correct? Yes, but since AI tools and agents are commodities now, anyone else can create the same or equivalent content, so the monetary value of AI-generated content is near-zero due to its low scarcity value.

And if we consider “ownership” of cognition, then the only cognition we truly own is what we know and can create once all the AI tools and agents are offline. In other words, what we truly own and control is our own knowledge and experience. Everything we “rent” or borrow isn’t ours to “own” if we understand functional value as only what we control lock, stock and barrel, with zero dependence on conditions beyond our control.

Which makes us wonder if we’re renting AI or AI is renting us.

In many cases, we’re actually only “renting” the functional / monetary value of what we “own,” and that makes the value of “ownership” far more contingent and far less predictable and considerably less certain than we might imagine.

---

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, Don ($70), for your superbly generous subscription to this site — I am greatly honored by your support and readership.		Thank you, NDM ($70), for your marvelously generous subscription to this site — I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, John S. ($70), for your massively generous subscription to this site — I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.

Thank you, Sally B. ($70), for your splendidly generous subscription to this site — I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Source: http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2026/08/were-actually-only-renting-what-we.html