Money

by Eric Lonergan

Over the past year, we have seen banks tumble, City firms collapse and the advent of the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. At the heart of these events lies the pursuit of money. But just what is this thing that seems so powerful and omnipresent and yet is physically worthless - a piece of paper, or a digit on a computer screen? How does it work? And, more importantly, how far can we control the power it has over our lives? Eric Lonergan explores our complex relationship with money. In a provocative and insightful analysis, Lonergan argues that few things seem to matter more to us, but few things are as poorly understood. Economists have long worked with the theory that our relationship to money is rational, but not all our reactions to it make sense. Lonergan shows that many of our views about money, credit and saving are little better than prejudices. The same social and emotional forces that affect quant traders in the world's financial markets can be seen in the mania of Pokemon card trading in the school playground. This fascinating book reveals the tension between money's capacity to assist us in our lives and its propensity to cause instability and to distort our values. We are limited in our ability to control money's power, says Lonergan, but only by understanding money better, and thinking about it less, may we get on with enjoying what we have.

Genres: Philosophy, Economics, Finance

160 pages, Paperback

First published October 31, 2009

About the author

Eric Lonergan is a macro hedge-fund manager at M&G Investments in London. He studied PPE at the University of Oxford and has an MSc in economics and philosophy from the London School of Economics.

Reviews

[Mohammad Hrabal · Rating 3 out of 5]

میزان تورم یک کشور چیزهای زیادی درباره‌ی آن کشور به ما می‌گوید. میزان معمول تورم، بین ۱ تا ۵ درصد، به این معناست که نهادهای حکومت می‌توانند با بهره‌مندی از درجه‌ی مناسبی از اعتماد عمل کنند، زیرا از قدرت چاپ پول سوء استفاده نمی‌شود. اما اگر تورم از ۵ درصد به ۱۰ درصد و بعد به ۳۰ درصد و بیشتر برسد، چنان‌ که در آرژانتین یا زیمبابوه رسید، معلوم می‌شود که چیز شوم تری در کار است. شاید علتش این باشد که اعتماد کافی ممکن نبوده زیرا راهی برای نظارت بر حاکمان وجود نداشته است. به‌ همین دلیل است که فلزات گرانبها یا سکه‌های ذاتاً قیمتی را معیار ارزش پول قرار داده‌اند. ناتوانی ما در نظارت بر دولت، که مستلزم اطلاعات و نهادهای مستقلی چون سازمان‌های آمار و نهادهای حقوقی و مطبوعات آزاد است، پول کاغذی و الکترونیک را ممکن ساخته است. تورم شتابنده نشانه‌ی درماندگی یا دیکتاتوری است. صفحات ۹-۱۰ کتاب
درباره‌ی جوامع به‌ طور کلی می‌توان گفت که به‌ نظر می‌رسد هر چه مازاد منابع بیشتر باشد جامعه دست‌ کم در درون خود اخلاقی‌تر می‌شود. کشورهای توسعه‌یافته سابقه‌ی حقوق بشر بهتر، میزان جنایت کم‌تر، بهداشت بهتر، مراقبت بهتر از سالمندان و تأمین اجتماعی بهتری از کشورهای در حال توسعه دارند. صفحه ۲۴ کتاب
​۱۴۰۴/۱۰/۱۵

[Alvand · Rating 1 out of 5]

خیلی ضعیف بود. واقعن از نشر نو انتظار نداشتم.

جدا از نگاه از بالا به پایین نویسنده که در کل متن مشهود است، موضوعاتی که طرح می‌شود توضیح دقیقی در موردشان ارائه نمی‌شود. نویسنده با ابهام و عدم اطمینان سخن می‌گوید و از جمله‌های کوتاه زیاد استفاده می‌کند. موضوعات بدیهی و جملات تکراری هم زیاد در متن دیده می‌شود. در بعضی از قسمت‌های کتاب هم تحلیل‌های سطحی و بی‌پشتوانه ارائه می‌شود.
لطفا نخوانید.

۱ اردیبهشت ۱۴۰۲

[John Russon · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is a book written by a banker who fancies himself a philosopher. In fact, he's a banker. No insight. No explanation. A lot of self-important posturing. The book promises to explain the workings of finance, but it does not--it simply repeats the uninterpreted slogans one regularly hears.

[Jino · Rating 2 out of 5]

یا متن اصلی کتاب متمرکز نبود یا ترجمه بدی بود. از دید من این کتاب در مجموعه فلسفه ی زندگی جایی ندارد و بیشتر به قفسه علم اقتصاد متعلق است

[Tristan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a short and very compact book, which aims to cover a huge scope.

Despite the light-hearted tone, it is a book that requires concentration and holding on tight, as the author overturns “conventional” modern economics by going back to the seminal thinkers: Smith, Keynes, and Marx.

These fathers of economic theory did not overlook the moral philosophy of money, which has become forgotten in model-based modern economics. Despite its focus on mechanistic formulae, the human element of money causes much of modern financial policy to be based on irrational dogma, couched in moralising language, such as “debt is bad”, “recessions are cleansing”, and “recessions punish the reckless”. The author provides a logical and powerful refutation of this dogma through philosophy, and demonstrates that financial authorities do not practice what they preach through evidence of financial practice.

Austerity perpetuates recession and is completely contradicted by the policy of quantitative easing, which is simply printing money to get out of trouble. However, austerity policy means that QE is handed to banks, rather than handed direct to consumers, which would pull a country out of recession far more effectively. The choice made by the authorities reflects a Victorian reluctance to give hand outs to the poor, even though this would demonstrably work better than the current system, with no adverse effect.

Printing money does not automatically cause inflation, as QE has proven. And as the whole banking system proves, as money is created out of thin air by lending more than what is held in reserve. There is a “magic money tree”, and states with strong economies and respected institutions can print money when they need to. Instances when this policy failed are instances when the institutions could not maintain the necessary confidence.

People don’t understand money, not even the regulators. But going back to the very basics when analysing what actually happens in practice shows that Victorian dogma does not reflect reality. Let’s start with the banks: a deposit is in fact a loan to a highly leveraged institution. With that in mind, it logically follows that debt is not bad, but the whole system is dependant on protecting debt. That’s why QE was entered into to prevent bank defaults. If that can be done, no-one can logically argue against printing money and handing it to the consumers in order to stimulate the economy AND relieve human suffering.

This book is mainly a review of existing literature, and a starting point for more in depth study with a huge bibliography. Definitely a resource to consult time and again.

[Abdollah Nazari · Rating 1 out of 5]

تلخ است شاید، که ما در آغاز با زبان مواجهیم و زبان این کتاب علیل بود. خب، آن حیوان ناطقی که پشت این کتاب بود، گویی کسی ست که حواسپرتی دارد و به قواعد سلیس و شیوا سخن گفتن هم آشنا نیست.
اما بعد از آن، حتی همینقدر هم که از متن می فهمیم، سطحی، ساده انگارانه و تکراری ست. حتی در خودِ کتاب تکراری ست. چالش های اساسی را به زحمت طرح می کند و به زحمت پاسخ می دهد.
اما باز هم برمیگردم به ترجمه: آیا واقعا جناب مترجم، برادران کارامازوف را هم همینقدر بد ترجمه کرده است؟
راستش از نشرنو توقع دیگری داشتم.
راستش، این صد و چند صفحه، را بگذارید و در این حوزه معنایی، بهترهایی که هست را بیابید و بخوانید. این به خیر نزدیک تر است به گمانم.

[Satar Mahmoudi · Rating 3 out of 5]

اردیبهشت ۱۴۰۰ برای بار دوم خواندمش و یک امتیاز کم کردم هم بخاطر ترجمه هم متن آنقدر جامع نبود. جا داره بخصوص بحث های پولی فریدمن و تفاوتش با سیاست های کینز بیشتر و واضح تر توضیح داده می‌شد، دیدگاه نویسنده ظاهرا به پولگراها( مانیتریست ها) نزدیک است. بحث ارزهای رمزنگاری شده جدید را بخوبی میشد روی بستر بحث ارز خصوصی که هایک میگفته توضیح داد.

[Patrick Coast · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent overview of a majority of the important works in economics, with an interesting addition of philosophical reflection. Highly readable.

[Brian Romanchuk · Rating 4 out of 5]

(I wrote a review at http://www.bondeconomics.com/2016/03/... ).

In summary, this book provides a informal discussion of money and the economy. It is an eclectic approach, mixing a number lof economic schools of thought.

[Dmitry Gorochovsky · Rating 1 out of 5]

Didn't finish. Poorly written. No explanations whatsoever, just philosophical insights...

[John Dawson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book has attracted both praise and criticism. I think this accrues more to the subject matter than the writer's efforts i.e. it seems maybe impossible to write a book about money that gains wide acceptance. This book is short, but dense and seems to do a decent job. It does try to debunk the pernicious myth of "rational man". I'd read it again in preference to trying another.

[Mel Stead]

Review from the March 2010 issue of the Socialist Standard:

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blog...

[Al Maki]

I keep returning to it. Fascinating book on a subject people should think about more deeply, which is what Lonergan does.

[Lampros · Rating 5 out of 5]

.
Lonergan in the revised version elucidates the nature of money in the contemporary monetary economy. Fortunately this was included in the new edition because it is one of the best chapters to define money, taking into consideration financial theory and accounting, as well as their shortcomings. "Money" gets money demystified. It shows that many of our intuitions about money are wrong, those intuitions being not harmless at all in the "construction" of the economic policy. After all how can something you can generate at your demand, and use to aid your purposes be a liability?

The rest of the book stays true to its nature, as a philosophy book. You should not expect a book, using pedantic arguments that you will find in an advanced analytical philosophy text. It is a book based in intuition. Because after all just like the writer argues, money's value lies in its acceptance just like law and language. And in order to achieve that,I might add, we should take the effort to present our arguments on money in a comprehendible manner for everyone, regardless of the economic education.

"Money" is a well flowing book that will be a fun journey for every reader of every age. I strongly recommend it as a company while travelling or enjoying your vacations.

[Ira · Rating 1 out of 5]

I would not recommend this book and agree with the negative reviews it received. It is more of a read for the commuter to the city. There is very little insight the author brings from his experience of the workplace, and this could have been his strength. Instead, he is mainly moralising about an industry and its perception in society. He has clearly taken time out to understand, philosophically so to speak, the sector he works in and its effects on society, and good for him. It must have been important at a time when the sector is under such criticism. But then he chose to share his notes. This last part wasn't necessary as there is nothing enlightening in the book and if you have already read your Smith and Marx you will actually find it rather childish.

[Ali · Rating 1 out of 5]

ترجمعه بسیار ضعیف احد علیقلیان خواندن کتاب رو بسیار سخت و یا حتی ناممکن می‌کرد. اگه کل متن کتاب رو به گوگل ترنسلیت میدادن خروجی بهتر از این میشد.

[Tobias · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very slow and dense for a not very long book. Good insights, but had a hard time staying with it and therefore took months to get through.