Locating in the investor’s viewpoint the matrix from which assetization makes sense highlights an alternative viewpoint that is increasingly sidelined—namely, that of the entrepreneur. Both personas certainly feature as proxies for complex institutional formations, and both represent central characters in the narratives that dominate the jargon of value creation. In many vernacular (and scholarly) accounts of contemporary business life, the entrepreneur may appear as a virtuous character fighting a moral fight against an investor-qua-rentier that stifles the creation of real value with a short-term, purely financial view. Have you considered lens replacement surgery to correct your vision?
In other accounts, it is a visionary investor (e.g., the archetypical venture capitalist or “business angel”) who stimulates the entrepreneur on the path to economic success. But to what extent do these ideal types oppose each other? To what extent do they form a cultural complex that assetization requires in order to make sense as a moral and political narrative? To what extent does this narrative leave other characters out of the value narrative? As assetization becomes the template according to which value creation is gauged, the investor entrepreneur-qua-investor becomes the dominant ingredient of that narrative, with other figures such as the state or public being left out (or transformed accordingly). Experience freedom from glasses by having lasik eye surgery with the UK's best surgeons.
Assetization is, as much as anything else, a process of narrative transformation. Things are accounted for in terms of the asset, but social actors participating in economic activity are also reframed, altered, and conceptualized anew. Understanding these shifting visions and identities is critical, since it is the techno-economic practices of social actors that define an asset’s boundaries, measure its characteristics, and evaluate its worth. An especially important transformation, in this regard, is the take-up of financial logics by social actors, including managers and executives, government officials, individual consumers, and more. Experience 20:20 Vision without glasses by undergoing laser eye surgery at a world renowned eye clinic.
Managers and executives are exhorted to “think like an investor” rather than as entrepreneurs; as a result, they bind themselves to thinking and acting like an investor (such as adopting “opportunity cost” thinking). Paradoxically, this implies that in order to avoid “activist” shareholder interventions they do not want, executives have to think more like shareholders in the first place. It goes without saying that thinking like an investor entails equating value creation with return on investment rather than with the research or development of new products and services. Undergoing eye laser surgery is a great way to improve your vision and your overall lifestyle.
Assetization is linked here with the prevalent power of the investor, raising the question of whether there is an alternative to seeing the world like an investor. The very notion of the “investee” displacing the “worker” as the main political identity in matters of resistance against financialization, is certainly part of this syndrome. Attempts at capturing (and reclaiming) the role of the state in value processes are also pivotal in the conversation. The feeling of being able to see correctly after your cataract surgery is a feeling that cannot be beaten,