Ahiakpor bids us read (and believe) the following from Clark's attack on Boehm-Bawerk: "For the common and practical conception of capital as a permanent fund or amount of wealth expressible in money, -- thought not actually embodied in money, -- there is substituted (by Boehm-Bawerk) the conception of concrete goods, distinguishable from others by reason of the place that they occupy in the order of industrial production ... This course has entailed confusion in the writings of each one who has adopted it, and it has caused needless controversies between different writers" (1893, 306)." That of course is vintage Clark. Rereading it does not make it more persuasive. It seems to me that it is helpful here to distinguish intrinsic and extrinsic value. B-B's capital has intrinsic value. Clark includes paper claims to goods in general, which he endows with a kind of Rosicrucian immortality. The capital of society as a whole is the sum of the intrinsic values. Paper claims, on the other hand, are generally layered and pyramided and add up to more than the sum of intrinsic values. As to flows, there are speculations in derivatives and foreign exchange etc. that go way beyond transfers of real wealth. In addition, paper claims include claims to landownership, to quotas and licenses granted by politicians, etc., which are not capital in the sense of man-made additions to social wealth. Clark's conflating of extrinsic with intrinsic values is part of his enduring campaign to conflate landownership and licenses, et al., with social capital. They are also part of his world-view that social wealth is simply the sum of individual (including corporate) claims to wealth. I am not aware that he ever discussed slavery, but if he did you can infer what he would have said about the Emancipation Proclamation. To push that a little farther (perhaps too far, to illustrate a point) suppose The Mafia incorporated and sold shares, before long Clark might well include their market value with his kind of capital. Moderns would chime in and call it an "efficient market" so long as no one could profit by further arbitrage in the shares. B-B's emphasis on intrinsic values is more consistent with a study of social economy than Clark's emphasis on extrinsic values. Accordingly, one might say that the Austrians, or at least B-B, were more socially minded than Clark, Knight, and their followers. It is thus perhaps a mistake to fault Austrians in general for excessive individualism. Or at least we should ask "Which Austrian", and "Compared to whom?" Mason Gaffney