Abstract
This commentary provides the contours of a Marxian critique of ‘assetization’. In doing so, the paper identifies a subjective approach to valuation and value which ties together Birch's and Ward's appeal to theoretical pluralism. The argument highlights how a focus on future-orientated valuation practices elide the question of class and production and, therefore, the very basis of rent and value. A call is made for geographers to better interrogate the relationship between rent and interest in the flurry of research around rentiership.

This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit: