Editing Individual capital (section)

== Versus "intellectual capital" ==

Perhaps because of this, not all theorists recognize individual capital as being as essential as labour, or distinct from social or political influence, or from instructional capacity.  These theorists often refer to "[[intellectual capital]]", which more properly describes a debate or locus of complexity that arises when individuals take key instructional roles.  Some refer to [[celebrity]] as another fusion, when individuals take key social roles.

However, a great many celebrities are clearly not "intellectual" achievers nor notable for any cognitive or analytic powers, e.g. [[Kim Kardashian]], [[professional sports]] figures or other [[sportsperson|athlete]]s.   While they may through sheer exposure become involved in causes or controversies (as [[Paris Hilton]] did in the [[US presidential election, 2008]]) it's clearly not correct to label all individually unique talent or economic value as being an "intellectual" asset.

This failure to distinguish individual's objectively observed economic value (the power to promote or publicize products, draw attention to causes, etc.) from the "intellectual" powers is probably an [[elitist]] bias.  Clearly, there are some individuals, including non-humans such as a [[racehorse]], which have economic value unique to their individual body and being that cannot be captured or defined as an "intellectual" asset nor as a set of "social" relationships (because horses do not socialize in the sense humans do).  Where [[slavery]] exists or has existed, there is clearly a value put on living bodies separate from their instructional or social selves.

Thus for analyzing historical or criminal economic activities, or even professional sports, the instructional capital vs. '''individual capital''' vs. [[social capital]] distinction is essential.