The results of the analysis may be summed up to show the degree of coincidence and the distinctions between the two categories of assets: (_a_) the value (that is to say, the amount) of given assets, whether tangible or intangible, is the capitalised (or capitalisable) value of the given articles of wealth, rated on the basis of their income-yielding capacity to their owner; (_b_) in the case of tangible assets there is a presumption that the objects of wealth involved have some (at least potential) serviceability at large, since they serve a materially productive work, and there is therefore a presumption, more or less well founded, that their value represents, though it by no means measures, an item of serviceability at large; (_c_) in the case of intangible assets there is no presumption that the objects of wealth involved have any serviceability at large, since they serve no materially productive work, but only a differential advantage to the owner in the distribution of the industrial product;[7] (_d_) given tangible assets may be disserviceable to the community,--a given material equipment may owe its value as capital to a disserviceable use, though in the aggregate or on an average the body of tangible assets are (presumptively) serviceable; (_e_) given intangible assets may be indifferent in respect of serviceability at large, though in the aggregate, or on an average, intangible assets are (presumably) disserviceable to the community. On this showing it would appear that the substantial difference between tangible and intangible assets lies in the different character of the immaterial facts which are turned to pecuniary account in the one case and in the other. The former, in effect, capitalise such fraction of the technological proficiency of the community as the ownership of the capital goods involved enables the owner to engross. The latter capitalise such habits of life, of a non-technological character,--settled by usage, convention, arrogation, legislative action, or what not,--as will effect a differential advantage to the concern to which the assets in question appertain. The former owe their existence and magnitude to the usufruct of technological expedients involved in the industrial process proper; while the latter are in like manner due to the usufruct of what may be called the interstitial correlations and adjustments both within the industrial system and between industry proper and the market, in so far as these relations are of a pecuniary rather than a technological character. Much the same distinction may be put in other words, so as to bring the expression nearer the current popular apprehension of the matter, by saying that tangible assets, commonly so called, capitalise the processes of production, while intangible assets, so called, capitalise certain expedients and processes of acquisition, not productive of wealth, but affecting only its distribution. Formulated in either way, the