The destruction of Political Economy as a science owes much to the destruction of the word "capital". When the "schools of economics" aggregated land and money and fixed assets and plant and machinery all under the umbrella of "capital", they allowed the politician and his trained seals to do tricks to make any magician proud. If a system of "capitalism" is to promote the legitimate ends of Political Economy we must more accurately define "capital" (very much as it was defined by Adam Smith) as that which enhances the well being of society through the reduction of drudgery.

The word "capital" in its unadorned form, as it is to be employed in political economy is meant to refer to those products of labor which are not consumed but employed to increase the productivity of labor or the reward to labor; those "goods" that are used to reduce the need for labor in the production of further goods or in the toil necessary to attain a reasonable level of comfort. As such, it is the development of capital that has allowed the current population to be supported by the limited resources of the planet. The term "capital" is certainly descriptive of plant and machinery. But it can also quite easily refer to societal infrastructure such as dams, roads, bridges, and the like which increase the efficacy of the division and specialization of land and labor. In certain contexts it is also correct to refer to organizations of individuals that reduce the need for labor in the production of goods or comfort. Although such organizational structures are not strictly capital because they are composed of people as opposed to goods, investments in such organizations in the form of "shares" is often referred to as a "capital" investment and in that particular context we seek to tolerate the phrase. To the extent that such an organization reduces the need for labor in the production of goods then to that extent is it tolerable to refer to the organization using the term "capital".

With an adorning adjective the word "capital" can be used to refer to any creation of labor that will not be consumed, but employed to decrease the labor necessary in pursuit of comfort, security, or consumption. An example is "fixed capital" which is normally a structure erected for the purpose of business or for the purpose of shelter (comfort). Even in the case of a home, this structure reduces the labor necessary in achieving "comfort". A form of capital allowed by Adam Smith called "circulating capital" was those things needed to market ones produce. In common use today we might include containers, advertising tools, trucks, and other devices used in marketing and distribution. Smith also allowed "inventory" under the term "capital". A position with which we would disagree, but we will accept for the nonce.

Perhaps more importantly it will be seen that the insulting phrase "human capital" as it refers to an educated work force is also a tenable aggregation. It is insulting because it is used to mask the inalienability of the educational asset, to mask the income to labor and to refer to it as something else. Therefore the use of capital to describe acquired skills is to allow humans to be treated like robots, or commodities. But the term is useful so long as one remembers that it is being employed to describe the benefits of education in the subject universe as a whole, i.e. the educational level of a society can greatly influence the productivity of that society, and as capital is that which increases productivity and as the acquisition of knowledge and skills is the result of labor, then the average educational level can be referred to as a form of capital and the investment (the labor or goods employed) in improving that level of competence can be referred to as a capital investment no less that the construction of roads and bridges and dams.

However, land and money are not real capital. And the attempts of the trained seals to aggregate these totally inappropriate terms into the word "capital" so as to bless them with the word "capitalism" is but a hoax perpetrated by the aristocracy to legitimize its greed. Unlike capital, land nor money is created by labor and therefore neither of these economic realities are subject to ownership in the sense that the creations of labor might be. And though it may seem that the wages we earn are the money we receive, the money is really a credit that can be redeemed for our true wages. The stuff we "buy" with these tokens are our true wages. And we may buy consumables, or durables, or we may trade these tokens for ownership of real capital. Land, not being a product of labor is not truly subject to ownership as would be the fruits of our labor. And any time the trained seal "economist" attempts to refer to land or money as capital he will be excusing the greed of an aristocracy; he will be attempting to hide the collection of Economic Rent