Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.78 AVERAGE
3.78 AVERAGE
Who the hell edited this book? I'm convinced no one did. I don't understand why this has good reviews, and I don't think anyone should subject themselves to this. What's a tragedy is there is good information in this book, but it's written so poorly it's almost unreadable.
I love nonfiction and biographies, but this is so disorganized that it feels like someone wrote a college paper the morning it was due. The first chapter is literally him in a bar talking to his friend, asking him what he thinks money is... and then telling him he's wrong. This story is mixed in with him talking about stone age economics from the island of Yap, Chinese proverbs such as being a fish out of water, and the Republic of Ireland... I'm sorry, what?
He then does that bullshit where he jumps back and forth between the present day and the past. My guy, just write a chapter on the Greek Dark Ages and write another chapter on Mesopotamia. Make it linear, follow a timeline, and finish everything that needs to be said about that time and place. This isn't an autobiography; we don't need flashbacks and detours.
Another review said they didn't like it because it reads like a textbook. Wrong. I love textbooks. This was nothing like a textbook. This was an abomination.
I love nonfiction and biographies, but this is so disorganized that it feels like someone wrote a college paper the morning it was due. The first chapter is literally him in a bar talking to his friend, asking him what he thinks money is... and then telling him he's wrong. This story is mixed in with him talking about stone age economics from the island of Yap, Chinese proverbs such as being a fish out of water, and the Republic of Ireland... I'm sorry, what?
He then does that bullshit where he jumps back and forth between the present day and the past. My guy, just write a chapter on the Greek Dark Ages and write another chapter on Mesopotamia. Make it linear, follow a timeline, and finish everything that needs to be said about that time and place. This isn't an autobiography; we don't need flashbacks and detours.
Another review said they didn't like it because it reads like a textbook. Wrong. I love textbooks. This was nothing like a textbook. This was an abomination.
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
I have to say I was very grateful for the summary chapter at the end, it was a very interesting book on the issues of the conventional theories of money and how they have affected the economic system ever since.
I was really excited about this book thinking it would be a light hearted history of money and its various forms. It's a very dense history with far too much info to be enjoyable unless you REALLY like to read history text books.
informative
medium-paced
Martin's book explores the development of monetary society, primarily in the West. He interrogates and deconstructs the 'conventional view' of money as a thing - handed down to us by Locke and Smith - and explores an 'alternative view' of money as a social technology. In so doing, he seeks to suggest better means of unlocking money's promise of social stability and meritocracy by aligning our policy, regulation and academic discourse with the idea of money as social technology, not as a natural, immutable thing. Strongly recommend Graeber's Debt as a companion to Martin's discussion.
narrative story of what money is and why it is so confusing. lots of good and in depth anicdotes
This book goes off in some interesting directions that I never expected. Best read in short spurts, there's a lot of information to take in here. Not convinced of his conclusion totally at the end, but it taught me a lot about history and gave me a lot to think about regarding monetary policy. I'll have to read David Graeber's book ASAP so I can compare/contrast!
Accessibly and capably arguing that money is a social invention rather than anything natural, Martin offers a compelling diagnosis of what went wrong leading up to 2008, and what we can do to fix it: regulation to ensure taxpayers aren’t on the hook for the gambling of banksters.
7/10
7/10
Compelling beginning, but I feel like it turned very technical for the second half and I lost my way a bit.
Covers some of the same ground as David Graeber's Debt: The First 5000 Years, but in a drier, less overwrought tone. It feels much more credible.