Money: The Unauthorised Biography

This is a great book overall, and a very worthwhile read. It isn't the first book to point out that the "first there was barter, then there was money" history of money is almost certainly wrong, but it benefits from being more approachable than the others I've tried over the years (e.g. David Graeber).It's possibly a remarkable thing to say given the importance of money in the modern economy, but we arguably understand less about it now than we did fifty years ago. Reading this book helps to understand that point, and also the point that "money" and "credit"---far from being separate---are a lot more closely related than we're typically taught to realise.I wasn't a big fan of the way in which the book's conclusion was written - an imaginary conversation between the author and a clever-clogs. But there is far more of value in this book to be put off by the style of its concluding chapter.

At first I thought this was going to be a revelatory new look at what money is (and isn't). The first few chapters captured my attention forcing me to rethink my (entrenched?) perspectives. But as I progressed through the chapters it felt increasingly like a rhetorical diatribe against capitalism without a robust analysis. In fact, the book ceased to be about money per se with a heavier focus on economic organisation. Nonetheless, for me it was an interesting read, as I had to confront my own long-held views. I would recommend this volume to anyone interested in money, but it needs to be read with a strong critical attitude.

I am interested in economics and business but have not studied them formally. This is a brilliant explanation of what money is and how it works. I especially like the way Felix Martin shows how the headbanger view of money==gold is completely wrong. I feel much better placed to form my own opinion on this topic now, and recommend everyone reads this book!

This is a good book. Well worth Reading if you are looking for a well argued history of how people through history have conceived of money as a commodity rather then as trusted credit.For me, the author makes a few unfounded moral conclusions from this argument, but this does not detract from a really interesting point of view and easily digestible book.

Our lack of understanding of the nature of money has been one reason for the political malfunction of society in the past forty yeas. Inequality has increased and opportunity diminished. Felix Martin has written a wonderfully clear historical and philosophical explanation of how money is not a commodity, but a social construct, an essential invention of civilisation. Several books have appeared in the last few years pointing this.out, and what can be done to improve the situation. This is the best of the bunch.

this book slowly releases it pleasures as it build a compelling account

This is great book for those with an interest in finance, economics and society. The author challenges a common view of money as originally a physical commodity, such as gold and silver, from which systems of credit derived. He finds this view in Locke, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill, where it leads to the view that money is a medium of exchange that cancels itself out and can be safely neglected in economic theory. The survival of metal coins and destruction of paper credit notes give undue plausibility to this view.To this he opposes an account of money as quantified, transferable social credit, which he attributes to John Law, Walter Bagehot (author of Lombard Street) and John Maynard Keynes, also tracing it back (unnecessarily perhaps) to ancient Greece. This view facilitates a more accurate understanding of the relations of private money and the state. Martin gives an interesting account of medieval bills of exchange that were not backed by a state. He attributes Locke's rejection of the transferable credit theory to a Whig desire to limit state power at a time when the state was beginning to be used to underwrite the currency through central banks in modern fashion. I liked his suspicion that the obscurity of some discussions of money is typical of those trying to keep a valuable trade secret.Other reviewers have claimed that Martin overreaches himself towards the end in trying to advise contemporary politicians and I have some sympathy with this. He perhaps confuses the fact that something is social with the idea that it can be changed at will. The last chapter gives a clear summary of his basic ideas for those lost in the argument. Overall, I felt that I had learned a lot about money and its social significance from this book.

I wish that I had read this book a long time ago, especially when I was studying economics, as it clarifies and simplifies some of the key issues and debates in economic theory. It's solid economics, rather than popular economics, so it requires effort, but it's worth it. He gets right to the heart of the nature of money as a social construct, and in doing so gives the clearest argument against the gold standard or any other standard, that I have read. This in turn shows why General Equilibrium modelling is an elegant thought experiment, but not useful for dealing with the real world.When I started to work in the markets, I was surprised by how little attention was paid to much of the theory that I had learned at Cambridge. I assumed this was because financial economics was just catching up with the academy. I now realise that it was because much of the economics of the second half of the 20th century had been tried and discarded as useless, so practical economists had gone back to the basics. Again, this book explains why.

very good.

Well written to gain and maintain interest in the subject.

Interesting book.

Brilliantly shows how the "clever fools" duped themselves through wish-fulfilment that Money could be an objective thing.

Heavy reading for me but very informative

The second sentence of this book tells of an island 'nestled' in an archipelago. Who nestled it? 'Nestle' is intransitive - it was NESTLING.

Excellent: makes a complex subject seem simple.