petergarylee

You need to think in the alternative way(If the statement do not hold):

A: If there is no price mechanism eg, barter , do you own your property(assets)? Yes, you will defense your own property, thus there is property right. Wrong

B: When there is no scarcity, eg market equilibrium or free good, do you own your own assets? Yes, so there is property right. Wrong

C: If you do not compete for resources, then you are giving up the right to own the assets, Property right has no meaning if you don't want to own the assets, so there is no property right. Correct, thus if you compete for  resources which means you secure your ownership of the assets, property right then exists.

Want to remind the first replier, property right is the ownership of assets, doesn't matter in AL or DSE. If you own the property right, you have the power/authority to use, transfer or earn from the assets, even there is no competition.

petergarylee

I think the one who need to think twice is you, my dear friend, Using exam stetting to ruin Economics is a shame. Maybe I am not using a good example for B but I think theoretically it is correct, I apologies for it.
Moreover, please read carefully about the link that you have provided:'在经济社会中，基本的游戏规则即产权的规则': point out the rule of property right is the rule of competition, means rule=rule, not property right=rule. Also '所以如果这表不是我的，人们就会进行无谓的浪费来得到表。但如果这表是我的，我就会把表给出价最高的人，而且要求的价钱一定不少于金表价值。由此你会发现若产权不是私有的，为了行使产权，很多资源被浪费了。': If it is not mine(如果这表不是我的), if it is mine(但如果这表是我的), property right isn't privately owned(产权不是私有的), these words already show property right is a symbol of OWNERSHIP and it can be EXERCISE(行使)
Please point out where is "Property rights 係HKALE 係指rules of competition private property 係其中一set rules of competition'
It is so naïve that using those narrow thought to explain stuff, Steven Cheung isn't.
Also, telling you why no Chinese can win the Nobel prize. It is because most of the ppl are thinking like you, exam rules, school rules and country rules, not thinking from the subject itself but the things that force to it, even there is 'Chinese' winner, they are for sure not mainly educated in Greater China and they are for sure not holding a Chinese passport.
I, as an Economics student studying overseas, am very proud of the foreign education system, especially my Economics course and knowledge. I don't know what you are studying at, but an Economist will definitely not think in your way. To repeat my point, I don't think property right is rule of competition, using the naïve equation and forced definition will only make your mind become narrower. Finally, using Steven Cheung's word:两人经济体系我们研究了30多年还没有说清楚, I really hope you can think before you say, there is no definition is Social Science especially shouldn't think like you, past concept is keep being reject or renew, so don't bound your mind by the book or what others tell you, it can be the way that you write a book or you tell others. I am not saying I know everything, at least I am not being an exam machine or recorder, where I explain stuff by using my own words.

PS, it is a good article(not mine, Steven Cheung's), I suggest others to have a look.

petergarylee

Please read my words carefully:
'even there is 'Chinese' winner, they are for sure not mainly educated in Greater China and they are for sure not holding a Chinese passport. '
Please check out the list carefully for their 'nationality' and 'education', other then those 'political' prize,

Yes, your words is correct, exam is exam, even it is wrong it is still exam, similar to all the language paper, even the author or writer cant figure out the ans. Education is a process but not an aim or final result, if anyone of us find out there is mistake or unclarified information, we should point it out, rather than leaving it. Maybe my thought cant suit the public exam but telling students to think and memorize those narrow definition will only make the education worse. I calrify now, my answer do not gather you marks, it is an optional thought, if you want to get 5** please refer to others answer, sorry for confusion, but if you are arguing with Economics thought then plz reject me.
Also, to reply the definition question, the given article :
'You may refer to the below article by Steven Cheung
http://www.gongfa.com/chanquanzhangwuchang.htm'
only points out that property right is ownership and I have explain it already, if I have missed any part, plz point it out.

FInally, I have to point out that, knowing a system or a set of rules is a waste of time if you didn't overcome them, that's why I think study for study/ exam for exam is also a waste of time.(please ignore this sentence if you are dse exam fighter, it wont give you marks or even make you fail)