What do you think?
Rate this book
The City: London and the Global Power of Finance
Radical insider’s account of how the city of London really works
The City, as London’s financial centre is known, is the world’s biggest international banking and foreign exchange market, shaping the development of global capital. It is also, as this groundbreaking book reveals, a crucial part of the mechanism of power in the world economy.
Based on the author’s twenty years’ experience of City dealing rooms, The City is an in-depth look at world markets and revenues that exposes how this mechanism works. All big international companies—not just the banks—utilise this system, and The City shows how the operations of the City of London are critical both for British capitalism and for world finance.
Tony Norfield details, with shocking and insightful research, the role of the US dollar in global trading, the network of Britishlinked tax havens, the flows of finance around the world and the system of power built upon financial securities. Why do just fifty companies now have control of a large share of world economic production? The City explains how this situation came about, examining the history of the world economy from the postwar period to the present day.
If you imagine you don’t like “finance” but have no problem with the capitalist market system, think it turns out the two cannot be separated.
The City, as London’s financial centre is known, is the world’s biggest international banking and foreign exchange market, shaping the development of global capital. It is also, as this groundbreaking book reveals, a crucial part of the mechanism of power in the world economy.
Based on the author’s twenty years’ experience of City dealing rooms, The City is an in-depth look at world markets and revenues that exposes how this mechanism works. All big international companies—not just the banks—utilise this system, and The City shows how the operations of the City of London are critical both for British capitalism and for world finance.
Tony Norfield details, with shocking and insightful research, the role of the US dollar in global trading, the network of Britishlinked tax havens, the flows of finance around the world and the system of power built upon financial securities. Why do just fifty companies now have control of a large share of world economic production? The City explains how this situation came about, examining the history of the world economy from the postwar period to the present day.
If you imagine you don’t like “finance” but have no problem with the capitalist market system, think it turns out the two cannot be separated.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published April 5, 2016
39 people are currently reading
627 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
July 21, 2016
This book busts a key myth I often hear the left putting out there that in the 1950s everything was great in the UK. After the war, the Atlee government brought in the welfare state, inequality reduced, and things were rosy. Then Thatcher got in and introduced neoliberalism, this was increased under Blair.
The problem with this story, where Thatcher, Blair and Neoliberalism are that 'bad guys' is it ignores the role of Colonialism. Where did we get the money to fund the welfare state? The answers are quite uncomfortable. We paid way below market prices for imports for raw materials from our colonies and we forced them to buy our exports and keep our uncompetitive manufacturing going.
This is linked to another the myth - Britain was the 'workshop of the world'. It's not true. We've mostly always had a trade deficit for most of the last century. Instead we have been the worlds banker or broker. So, the story that the Big Bang where a lot of financial services were liberalised by Margaret Thatcher was the start of some uber banking period of the UK is false. Yes, finance was coked up after Thatcher but she was *continuing* a trend, not starting a new one.
There is loads in this book. It charts in a lot of detail how the UK is able to facilitate the transfer of revenues into the UK from what the rest of the world produces. The figures are vast, so the UK is the number one place that foreign currency exchange trading takes place, over double amount in absolute terms as in the US. And the higher turnover in derivates. It sets out we got this role and how it links to and compliments the role of the US as the primary imperial power. It also looks at the role of the corporation as a chief vehicle for power and how this is linked to the role of the nation state.
He is a Marxist, but has worked in the city for 20 years. But, unlike many on the left and right. He doesn't think you can just reform it. He uses an analogy - the financial centre not like a cancer that can be removed, it is more like a central nervous system - without finance - modern capitalism is dead.
Sadly, this means a lot of the feel good arguments for reforming finance like the Robin Hood Tax, are useless given the nature of the problem. But this book will help you to see what the problem is. It's hard because it's not just some '1%' that are benefiting from the status quo, it's many more people in the UK. It's definitely me, and it's probably you too.
The problem with this story, where Thatcher, Blair and Neoliberalism are that 'bad guys' is it ignores the role of Colonialism. Where did we get the money to fund the welfare state? The answers are quite uncomfortable. We paid way below market prices for imports for raw materials from our colonies and we forced them to buy our exports and keep our uncompetitive manufacturing going.
This is linked to another the myth - Britain was the 'workshop of the world'. It's not true. We've mostly always had a trade deficit for most of the last century. Instead we have been the worlds banker or broker. So, the story that the Big Bang where a lot of financial services were liberalised by Margaret Thatcher was the start of some uber banking period of the UK is false. Yes, finance was coked up after Thatcher but she was *continuing* a trend, not starting a new one.
There is loads in this book. It charts in a lot of detail how the UK is able to facilitate the transfer of revenues into the UK from what the rest of the world produces. The figures are vast, so the UK is the number one place that foreign currency exchange trading takes place, over double amount in absolute terms as in the US. And the higher turnover in derivates. It sets out we got this role and how it links to and compliments the role of the US as the primary imperial power. It also looks at the role of the corporation as a chief vehicle for power and how this is linked to the role of the nation state.
He is a Marxist, but has worked in the city for 20 years. But, unlike many on the left and right. He doesn't think you can just reform it. He uses an analogy - the financial centre not like a cancer that can be removed, it is more like a central nervous system - without finance - modern capitalism is dead.
Sadly, this means a lot of the feel good arguments for reforming finance like the Robin Hood Tax, are useless given the nature of the problem. But this book will help you to see what the problem is. It's hard because it's not just some '1%' that are benefiting from the status quo, it's many more people in the UK. It's definitely me, and it's probably you too.
December 27, 2016
Norfield takes aim at the argument that it is all the fault of the banks and if only they hadn't screwed up somewhere around 20-something we'd still have a sensible system in which the dreadful rentiers weren't cashing in at such a grave cost to the 'real' economy.
In this book it's all one economy and the process we've taken to calling 'financialisation' just follows the logic of stuff that happened back in the 1970s when the dollar was unhitched from the price of gold and anyone who didn't jump on the sleigh ride that followed on from that was toast. According to Norfield the trigger for this step change in the way capitalism is structured came from the needs of mega-corporations which attained such size that they could no longer depend on nationally-regulated banking and finance institutions to meet their insatiable need for cash. 'Regulation Q' - a legacy of the Great Depression when Washington had learnt to fear the recklessness of Wall St - impeded the potential of US banks to grow to the size needed to fund the need for investment and cashflow funds.
Fortunately there was a store of dollars that had accumulated outside the control of the US state as a consequence of the activities of non-American companies using the currency to trade in world markets. This City of London had managed to switch from its role as the financial administrators to the British Empire to that of a global trading centre, having all the skills needed to manage commerce at this level and scale. But Norfield resists descent into populist denunciation of 'parasitism' when considering these developments. Instead he refers to Marx's point that money-dealing and commercial capital were not paralytic because their operations facilitated the productive circuit of capitalism.
The direct involvement of non-financial institutions in global money markets (for instance, Ford Motor Corporation establishing Ford Motor Credit to allow customers to finance the purchase of its cars) is internal to the productive circuit M-C-M. As productive capacity grew in scale to the level of world markets the need for for a close entanglement of manufacturing with finance grew ever greater. The problem was that the expertise in managing these operations lay outside the traditional firm and companies came to depend on the skills that existed in a handful of centres across the planet. London and New York jostled for first place in this list, with other national trading centres at some greater distance.
But the argument goes on to suggest that the distinction between a productive involvement in the financing of business and the sort of true parasitism that is represented by banks when they offer interest-bearing loans has become less clear-cut in the modern version of capitalism. Banks are traditional viewed as being parasitic on productive capital in that the interest they earn on their loans is only available by subtraction from profit. The type of banking business lauded by John Kay(see earlier review) suffers from this defect. Whilst it had served the function of allowing the bank's agents to identify the commercial activities from which it could extract a rent in the form of interest on a loan, it could not in this form manage the huge flows of cash that were needed to keep the productive economy growing. The de-regulation of the banking system which took place from the 1980s onwards brought about a fusion of traditional banking business and immersion in financialisation which allowed them to hugely increase the volume of trades, but also to bring huge new risks into the system.
A refreshing aspect of Norfield's argument is his instance on the role that imperialism has played in all these developments. In relation to British capitalism he argues that the evolution of the City of London over the past 50 years is a continuation of its function as an extractor of surplus value from countries that play a subordinate role in structure of global capitalism. What was once achieved through armies and colonial administrators is now won from the operations of markets that compel poor countries to hold a huge reserve of value in the form of a global currency which they pay for at the rates demanded by the powerful, but in which they have no say in the current course of its fluctuations as it helps regulate the up- and down-swings of the imperialist economies. The world markets which facilitated the accumulation of so much 'stuff' that part of the global population enjoys also generates the obstacles and barriers that seal if off from countless others.
Norfield's message then is forget all this jazz about a 'real' economy held in hock to nasty financiers, etc. Financialised capitalism, with its complete and total fusion of production with the flows of money and credit, is now the only capitalism on the block. If it is chronically unstable and if it rests on the exploitation of working people - now both as producers and consumers - either get used to it, or work out a way to replace it.
In this book it's all one economy and the process we've taken to calling 'financialisation' just follows the logic of stuff that happened back in the 1970s when the dollar was unhitched from the price of gold and anyone who didn't jump on the sleigh ride that followed on from that was toast. According to Norfield the trigger for this step change in the way capitalism is structured came from the needs of mega-corporations which attained such size that they could no longer depend on nationally-regulated banking and finance institutions to meet their insatiable need for cash. 'Regulation Q' - a legacy of the Great Depression when Washington had learnt to fear the recklessness of Wall St - impeded the potential of US banks to grow to the size needed to fund the need for investment and cashflow funds.
Fortunately there was a store of dollars that had accumulated outside the control of the US state as a consequence of the activities of non-American companies using the currency to trade in world markets. This City of London had managed to switch from its role as the financial administrators to the British Empire to that of a global trading centre, having all the skills needed to manage commerce at this level and scale. But Norfield resists descent into populist denunciation of 'parasitism' when considering these developments. Instead he refers to Marx's point that money-dealing and commercial capital were not paralytic because their operations facilitated the productive circuit of capitalism.
The direct involvement of non-financial institutions in global money markets (for instance, Ford Motor Corporation establishing Ford Motor Credit to allow customers to finance the purchase of its cars) is internal to the productive circuit M-C-M. As productive capacity grew in scale to the level of world markets the need for for a close entanglement of manufacturing with finance grew ever greater. The problem was that the expertise in managing these operations lay outside the traditional firm and companies came to depend on the skills that existed in a handful of centres across the planet. London and New York jostled for first place in this list, with other national trading centres at some greater distance.
But the argument goes on to suggest that the distinction between a productive involvement in the financing of business and the sort of true parasitism that is represented by banks when they offer interest-bearing loans has become less clear-cut in the modern version of capitalism. Banks are traditional viewed as being parasitic on productive capital in that the interest they earn on their loans is only available by subtraction from profit. The type of banking business lauded by John Kay(see earlier review) suffers from this defect. Whilst it had served the function of allowing the bank's agents to identify the commercial activities from which it could extract a rent in the form of interest on a loan, it could not in this form manage the huge flows of cash that were needed to keep the productive economy growing. The de-regulation of the banking system which took place from the 1980s onwards brought about a fusion of traditional banking business and immersion in financialisation which allowed them to hugely increase the volume of trades, but also to bring huge new risks into the system.
A refreshing aspect of Norfield's argument is his instance on the role that imperialism has played in all these developments. In relation to British capitalism he argues that the evolution of the City of London over the past 50 years is a continuation of its function as an extractor of surplus value from countries that play a subordinate role in structure of global capitalism. What was once achieved through armies and colonial administrators is now won from the operations of markets that compel poor countries to hold a huge reserve of value in the form of a global currency which they pay for at the rates demanded by the powerful, but in which they have no say in the current course of its fluctuations as it helps regulate the up- and down-swings of the imperialist economies. The world markets which facilitated the accumulation of so much 'stuff' that part of the global population enjoys also generates the obstacles and barriers that seal if off from countless others.
Norfield's message then is forget all this jazz about a 'real' economy held in hock to nasty financiers, etc. Financialised capitalism, with its complete and total fusion of production with the flows of money and credit, is now the only capitalism on the block. If it is chronically unstable and if it rests on the exploitation of working people - now both as producers and consumers - either get used to it, or work out a way to replace it.
January 23, 2018
I don't read that much which is written relatively recently about relatively recent things, so this marked a worthwhile shift for me - and it's an urgent and useful book. It does a brilliant job of unpicking the Marxist analysis of finance under capitalism and applying it to Britain - and I heard many echoes here of seminars with Ben Fine, who acted as Norfield's PhD supervisor, during my MA. Although I'm uncertain about Norfield's precise politics, it's interesting to read how he balanced them with a career in the City - and also his emphasis, absolutely essential, upon a rigorous anti-imperialism of the present.
That being said, there are a few points I'd like to raise - amplified because the book is otherwise so important. Firstly, it isn't always exactly clear what sort of book Norfield intended to write. It is far-reaching, as it would have to be: it discusses Marxist theories of finance, theories of imperialism, the specifics of the City's financial system and its role in the world, the place of Britain within the imperialist system, and Norfield's predictions for the future - including, before the outcome of the referendum was known, an acceptance of the possibility of Brexit. These are all fascinating, but this lack of clarity can disrupt the rhythm of the book because the structure doesn't reflect a single ambition - it's trying to reflect several.
More pressingly, the book is also notable - especially in the afterword to the paperback edition - for what is occludes. Norfield engages imaginatively with very recent phenomena like Brexit and Trump, with a balance which I think is admirable. Unfortunately, Norfield clearly comes from a tradition which - quite understandably - is deeply sceptical of the potential for change in or through the Labour Party. To a very considerable degree this perfectly reasonable - his history of Labour's policy positions is basically on the money, and his criticism of Miliband suitably withering. But the last few years have also witnessed the rise of Jeremy Corbyn and Momentum's uneven challenges to the party itself. Although Norfield might be right in implying that even a Corbynist Labour Party would bow to the needs of British finance and British imperialism, I think it is wrong to make that judgement at this stage - and worse not even to discuss Corbyn at all, when very clearly there has been a shift from merely regulating the banking system to actually attempting to take control of it. There are a number of open questions about Labour's ability to do that, and what it would mean within an imperialist context, but those are questions which Norfield should have engaged with more honestly.
That being said, there are a few points I'd like to raise - amplified because the book is otherwise so important. Firstly, it isn't always exactly clear what sort of book Norfield intended to write. It is far-reaching, as it would have to be: it discusses Marxist theories of finance, theories of imperialism, the specifics of the City's financial system and its role in the world, the place of Britain within the imperialist system, and Norfield's predictions for the future - including, before the outcome of the referendum was known, an acceptance of the possibility of Brexit. These are all fascinating, but this lack of clarity can disrupt the rhythm of the book because the structure doesn't reflect a single ambition - it's trying to reflect several.
More pressingly, the book is also notable - especially in the afterword to the paperback edition - for what is occludes. Norfield engages imaginatively with very recent phenomena like Brexit and Trump, with a balance which I think is admirable. Unfortunately, Norfield clearly comes from a tradition which - quite understandably - is deeply sceptical of the potential for change in or through the Labour Party. To a very considerable degree this perfectly reasonable - his history of Labour's policy positions is basically on the money, and his criticism of Miliband suitably withering. But the last few years have also witnessed the rise of Jeremy Corbyn and Momentum's uneven challenges to the party itself. Although Norfield might be right in implying that even a Corbynist Labour Party would bow to the needs of British finance and British imperialism, I think it is wrong to make that judgement at this stage - and worse not even to discuss Corbyn at all, when very clearly there has been a shift from merely regulating the banking system to actually attempting to take control of it. There are a number of open questions about Labour's ability to do that, and what it would mean within an imperialist context, but those are questions which Norfield should have engaged with more honestly.
May 18, 2016
Insightful and important. An in depth look at the history and development of the British financial system in the UK and it's importance to the UK's continuing imperial power.
Best read in conjunction with John Smith's 'Imperialism in the Twenty First Century'
Best read in conjunction with John Smith's 'Imperialism in the Twenty First Century'
May 30, 2017
this book is bad ass. it talks about beavis and butthead.
December 26, 2020
This book is best summarised by its description of the United Kingdom's shift from being the 'workshop of the world' and banker/commercial centre to the world's broker.
Author Norfield discusses how Britain lost the power it had post-War due to costs incurred fighting wars, as well as due to a weak economic situation.
The US took advantage, putting the dollar in a dominant position, but certain elements helped the sterling remain influential - being less fragmented than the US banking system, time zone advantages, restrictions on US banking arising from the inter-war slump etc.
This book focuses broadly on the relationship between the major powers in the '70s and' 80s, in particular the UK positioning itself in terms of its relationship with the US politically, economically and militarally along with the desire to avoid more stringent controls on its financial industry, owing to its relationships with non-EU countries. This influenced the UK's decision not to join the euro - it's 'mid-atlantic' policy, as the author calls it.
The growth of other financial markets in the '70s/80s prompted the UK to remove exchange controls and introduce reforms to attract more foreign companies into its financial industry.
This, the author suggests, was not to benefit a cabal of wealthy financiers in London, but to promote the City as an expanding area for British capitalism as a whole and establish the City of London as a main centre of international finance dealing, even if not necessarily related to the performance of UK economy.
This has resulted in the City being heavily dependent on the balance of power among all the major capitalist countries and how that power shifts over time.
Throughout the book, the author takes the viewpoint of a parasitic finance industry dealing in currencies, exchange rates and securities while having no actual role in the productive economy or the buying and selling of commodities. He argues that imperialism is economic rather than only political or military - a strong hold over world economy by capitalist companies backed up by a strong nation state support, something reflected in the position of successive UK governments in recent years.
States support their own large corporations in the world market through protecting IP and patents, or having politicians front trade delegations to get into foreign markets.
The book is highly informative on the banking system, describing how a very small portion of banks' assets actually goes into productive economic activity, and mostly reflects loans to each other, derivatives etc.
The author argues that profitability levels, especially in the US, are not taking account of any other factors such as dropping interest rates, the exploitation of cheap labour and relationships with countries with cheap labour, and the persistence of central banks buying debt from governments and privately as an ongoing stop gap to a system which is plainly not working.
The book also outlines the US' ability to use the power of the dollar and threat of being cut off from the US banking system for political ends (such as Iran sanctions) and economic ends, siphoning off value from elsewhere, while also largely being less subject to exchange rate risks than other countries.
Nevertheless, the author seeks to emphasise the UK's favourable conditions that are difficult to replicate elsewhere: the dominant language for international business, time zone between Asia and Americas, skilled workforce, commercial and employment legislation favourable to capital, regulation that is strongly defensive of capitalist property rights and friendly towards finance.
But he warns of the problems in the industry in that its main source of investment return - direct foreign investment - is now in a deficit since 2012, and other forms of financial investment such as portfolio investment and bank loans etc do not offer as high a rate of return.
Ultimately, the success of the City lies in the UK's status as a welcoming haven for foreign financial corporations. The book focuses in great detail how UK governments' protection of the industry gives the value of personal and political security for foreign investment in commercial and residential property, football teams, newspapers etc (eg. UK seeking to exempt City from any EU or US sanctions against Russia in wake of Crimea invasion). There is also the factor of the UK's disproportionate use of offshore centres used to garner funds and carry out transactions.
The finance industry, above all, is used to combat the UK's trade deficit, through the pumping of money into a sector with little actual value for the common person, facilitated through a capitalist system which many support and see as immovable despite stagnating wages, underemployment/unemployment and falling standards of living.
Ultimately this is a compelling and accessible book setting out the UK's influence on the global economy through its powerful financial industry, told in a relatively unbiased fashion by someone with a deep knowledge of the industry.
Author Norfield discusses how Britain lost the power it had post-War due to costs incurred fighting wars, as well as due to a weak economic situation.
The US took advantage, putting the dollar in a dominant position, but certain elements helped the sterling remain influential - being less fragmented than the US banking system, time zone advantages, restrictions on US banking arising from the inter-war slump etc.
This book focuses broadly on the relationship between the major powers in the '70s and' 80s, in particular the UK positioning itself in terms of its relationship with the US politically, economically and militarally along with the desire to avoid more stringent controls on its financial industry, owing to its relationships with non-EU countries. This influenced the UK's decision not to join the euro - it's 'mid-atlantic' policy, as the author calls it.
The growth of other financial markets in the '70s/80s prompted the UK to remove exchange controls and introduce reforms to attract more foreign companies into its financial industry.
This, the author suggests, was not to benefit a cabal of wealthy financiers in London, but to promote the City as an expanding area for British capitalism as a whole and establish the City of London as a main centre of international finance dealing, even if not necessarily related to the performance of UK economy.
This has resulted in the City being heavily dependent on the balance of power among all the major capitalist countries and how that power shifts over time.
Throughout the book, the author takes the viewpoint of a parasitic finance industry dealing in currencies, exchange rates and securities while having no actual role in the productive economy or the buying and selling of commodities. He argues that imperialism is economic rather than only political or military - a strong hold over world economy by capitalist companies backed up by a strong nation state support, something reflected in the position of successive UK governments in recent years.
States support their own large corporations in the world market through protecting IP and patents, or having politicians front trade delegations to get into foreign markets.
The book is highly informative on the banking system, describing how a very small portion of banks' assets actually goes into productive economic activity, and mostly reflects loans to each other, derivatives etc.
The author argues that profitability levels, especially in the US, are not taking account of any other factors such as dropping interest rates, the exploitation of cheap labour and relationships with countries with cheap labour, and the persistence of central banks buying debt from governments and privately as an ongoing stop gap to a system which is plainly not working.
The book also outlines the US' ability to use the power of the dollar and threat of being cut off from the US banking system for political ends (such as Iran sanctions) and economic ends, siphoning off value from elsewhere, while also largely being less subject to exchange rate risks than other countries.
Nevertheless, the author seeks to emphasise the UK's favourable conditions that are difficult to replicate elsewhere: the dominant language for international business, time zone between Asia and Americas, skilled workforce, commercial and employment legislation favourable to capital, regulation that is strongly defensive of capitalist property rights and friendly towards finance.
But he warns of the problems in the industry in that its main source of investment return - direct foreign investment - is now in a deficit since 2012, and other forms of financial investment such as portfolio investment and bank loans etc do not offer as high a rate of return.
Ultimately, the success of the City lies in the UK's status as a welcoming haven for foreign financial corporations. The book focuses in great detail how UK governments' protection of the industry gives the value of personal and political security for foreign investment in commercial and residential property, football teams, newspapers etc (eg. UK seeking to exempt City from any EU or US sanctions against Russia in wake of Crimea invasion). There is also the factor of the UK's disproportionate use of offshore centres used to garner funds and carry out transactions.
The finance industry, above all, is used to combat the UK's trade deficit, through the pumping of money into a sector with little actual value for the common person, facilitated through a capitalist system which many support and see as immovable despite stagnating wages, underemployment/unemployment and falling standards of living.
Ultimately this is a compelling and accessible book setting out the UK's influence on the global economy through its powerful financial industry, told in a relatively unbiased fashion by someone with a deep knowledge of the industry.
May 2, 2016
I won this book in a goodreads drawing.
I'm going to start this review with a snippet from The Beatles: "If you're carrying around pictures of Chairman Mao--You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow."
A book that has some useful information, but the author can't get out of his own way. Almost every paragraph includes some variation of the word imperialist. There's also a lot of self flagellating here.
If you can handle that, this book may be for you.
I'm going to start this review with a snippet from The Beatles: "If you're carrying around pictures of Chairman Mao--You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow."
A book that has some useful information, but the author can't get out of his own way. Almost every paragraph includes some variation of the word imperialist. There's also a lot of self flagellating here.
If you can handle that, this book may be for you.
December 7, 2020
Overview and critique of London's financial system in the global finance system from a leftist perspective, including concepts such as imperialism in critiquing capitalism
Particular highlights include:
Explaining why London became the international banking centre of choice, including the Thatcher-era "Big Boom" deregulation, which made it easier for financial companies to join the London Stock Exchange, abolished fixed commissions on buying and selling securities, and ended the established division of labour between jobbers and brokers and geographical/time zone consideration in which London can communicate with Asia in the morning, North and South American the afternoon, and Europe all day
Explaining how financial markets affect economic power. Financial developments can rapidly alter the relationships between major corporations and how they consider their role in the world market. The financial system grows out of the needs of the capitalist market, and it is also a means by which the major countries and their corporations try to maintain their privileged economic status. Finance is both a necessary part of capitalism and a way for rich countries to draw income from the rest of the world economy
Although the overview and explanations of financial instruments and tools is comprehensive, the downside is they vary between engaging and tedious
Particular highlights include:
Explaining why London became the international banking centre of choice, including the Thatcher-era "Big Boom" deregulation, which made it easier for financial companies to join the London Stock Exchange, abolished fixed commissions on buying and selling securities, and ended the established division of labour between jobbers and brokers and geographical/time zone consideration in which London can communicate with Asia in the morning, North and South American the afternoon, and Europe all day
Explaining how financial markets affect economic power. Financial developments can rapidly alter the relationships between major corporations and how they consider their role in the world market. The financial system grows out of the needs of the capitalist market, and it is also a means by which the major countries and their corporations try to maintain their privileged economic status. Finance is both a necessary part of capitalism and a way for rich countries to draw income from the rest of the world economy
Although the overview and explanations of financial instruments and tools is comprehensive, the downside is they vary between engaging and tedious
September 15, 2022
A good analysis of global finance and the place of the City of London in it. The author is a Marxist but his description of the mechanics of global finance I'd describe as simply realist, he uses data and most claims are well substantiated.
Where I found the book less convincing is its politics. Clearly the author (who, as we learn, used to work in the City himself for two/three decades) thinks global finance is 'parasitic' and 'imperialist'. However these remain just adjectives and not much more than slurs really as it's not clear what alternative model he'd suggest to allocate capital on the massive global scale as it happens today. He makes it clear that he thinks social democratic reforms to try to regulate or scale down finance are not sufficient, but we learn essentially nothing about his more radical (presumably socialist) alternative. One comes away with the impression that the reason is that the author himself has no plausible alternative to offer while disliking the current system. That is perhaps not surprising as it's hard to imagine how else you could coordinate such an enormous system of financial transactions than by decentralised markets and private appropriation of profits. That on the other hand does not mean that no reforms would be possible , but the author dismisses these as inadequate.
Where I found the book less convincing is its politics. Clearly the author (who, as we learn, used to work in the City himself for two/three decades) thinks global finance is 'parasitic' and 'imperialist'. However these remain just adjectives and not much more than slurs really as it's not clear what alternative model he'd suggest to allocate capital on the massive global scale as it happens today. He makes it clear that he thinks social democratic reforms to try to regulate or scale down finance are not sufficient, but we learn essentially nothing about his more radical (presumably socialist) alternative. One comes away with the impression that the reason is that the author himself has no plausible alternative to offer while disliking the current system. That is perhaps not surprising as it's hard to imagine how else you could coordinate such an enormous system of financial transactions than by decentralised markets and private appropriation of profits. That on the other hand does not mean that no reforms would be possible , but the author dismisses these as inadequate.
August 22, 2020
A really fantastic, wide-ranging political economic analysis of the global finance system and the world economy that helped reposition much of the work I’ve been reading over the last year (and although it does go in the weeds on City Of London details, that’s a crucial piece of knowledge we all should know more about!)
“Finance is a core feature of the world economy, holding all corporations and all states in its web, because it is an inevitable outgrowth of the capitalist system of production.”
“Finance is a core feature of the world economy, holding all corporations and all states in its web, because it is an inevitable outgrowth of the capitalist system of production.”
August 23, 2018
A very dry, very detailed, explicitly Marxist look inside how global finance works. Gets a little too invested in its own numbers sometimes, but the breaking down of complex systems into conceivable relationships is useful.
April 24, 2023
tells u what u need to know. situates the UK's dominance in international banking services within its position as an imperialist power
Read
September 6, 2024Great primer on finance in contemporary capitalism.
December 24, 2019
Insists there's no conflict between the interests of industry and finance and presents a rather conventional account of development of the Euromarkets. Comes across as some sort of left of centre Eurocrat wannabe and thinks American hegemony can be threatened by BRIC's/EU (lol)
June 22, 2016
3.5 stars. This is a very informative book. I received a free copy from the Goodreads First Reads giveaway.
April 27, 2017
Dr. Norfield describes at length the details of finance as inseparable from politics, the economy, banks, and wall street. The book is a primer but his thesis is weak. He spends an undue amount (like 90%) of the book proving that this is imperialist capitalism, but he has no advice on how to develop alternatives. As a reader, I come away with the impression that as a socialist he has joined hands pretty much enthusiastically with this all, and that of course it's because as a finance industry sort he has done pretty well. Too much of the information is repeated to the point of brainwashing, making the book seem like a stretched out redundant puff piece. While it drags on there are some interesting charts and tables, that are not that terribly boring. His final chapter might as well have been the first: the advice is something along the lines of nice work if you can get it, or 'only a stake in the heart of the capitalist system, not simply in some of its financial forms, will be enough to see an end to the power of the beast.' Really I think he means 'steak' since the entire book really has no other suggestions than these trite socialist trappings at the beginning and at the end. While doing a decent job in laying it all out, The City offers no solutions for change leading you to doubt the author is anything but a wallflower of a City capitalist cheerleader. In fact, I am disappointed that Verso Books even bothered to put it up there, since they are supposed to be out and out progressive socialist liberals.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews