From the Publisher
Praise for Money:
Finalist for Guardian First Book Award
"'Money is often held to have arisen as a solution to the shortcomings of barter: traders needed a universally acceptable 'medium of exchange.' In this lively history-cum-polemic, Martin says that the theory is 'entirely false,' and that the essence of monetary exchange is not 'the swapping of goods and services for this commodity medium' but a 'system of credit accounts and their clearing.'"
"Compulsively readable . . . Money is a fascinating and entertaining pep talk for bankers, economists and armchair revolutionaries dissatisfied with the current financial system, and an attempt to galvanize them into action."
— Heidi N. Moore, New York Times Book Review
“Felix Martin's remarkable book asks the big question: do economists have any idea what money is? His compelling answer is: no. You may not agree with the answer. But it will certainly force you to think.”
—Martin Wolf, author of Why Globalization Works
“Felix Martin has written a wonderfully original and entertaining history of money. If you have ever wondered why the whole system seems so dangerously and chronically unstable, this is the book to read.”
—Liaquat Ahamed, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Lords of Finance
“Felix Martin’s remarkable book Money is economic history–and indeed cultural anthropology–with a difference . . . his sparkling book is worth taking seriously.”
—Raymond Tallis, Prospect
"An excellent book . . . Full of interesting history and insight . . . a beautiful and sometimes even entrancing study of human thought about money."
—Tyler Cowen, Times Literary Supplement
"Blending history and economic analysis in his engaging first book, economist and bond investor Martin explains the development of sovereign currency and its critically important function in modern economies. . . Martin approaches his subject in entertaining fashion, discussing monetarism and monetary theory, from John Locke to the Federal Reserve System. . . Fluent, discursive, and informed. It holds considerable appeal for investors, their bankers, and those drawn to the mechanics of wealth."
"[A] critical essay fizzing with ideas.”
—Noel Malcolm, Sunday Telegraph
“Stimulating and timely.”
—David Priestland, Guardian
“The virtue of Martin’s book is that it exposes the deep flaws in the way we have traditionally thought about money. The exposition is clear . . . Fresh.”
—Alex Brummer, New Statesman
“Felix Martin condenses the broadest of subjects into a searing and potentially life-changing read that destroys all accepted knowledge of this thing we sell our souls for.”
“So replete with literary and historical examples that the story almost tells itself . . . a lucid, colorful introduction to 3,000 years of monetary history.”
—Martin Sandbu, Financial Times
“[Martin] wants to change the way you think about money. He rejects the textbook idea that it’s an alternative to barter, the oil in the engine of the world economy. He sees money as a liberating (though unstable) system of creating and exchanging credit. This original and thought-provoking history of what’s in your wallet also offers some controversial solutions to the financial crisis, such as raising inflation levels and writing off national debts.”
—The Guardian (UK) Summer Book Roundup
“A most accessible and thrilling read. If you want to read just one book about money, this is it.”
“Combines breadth of scholarship with a wealth of practical experience in tackling the most elusive of economic subjects–the nature of money.”
“Magnificent–hugely imaginative, clear, coherent.”
"[I]n this improbably lively account [...] Martin seeks a deeper understanding, relating money especially to power [...] Refreshingly free of jargon and long on ideas—including the thought that if it’s money that got us into our current mess, it’s money that can get us out of it."
"Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons."Woody Allen. Money bedevils us all, yet we all take it as a given. Understanding its history and how money markets work can benefit us even if it doesn't necessarily make us richer or even make sense. (Who was it who said that a bank is a place that will lend you money only if you can prove that you don't need it?) Felix Martin is a world class economist who, unlike many, possesses the talent to communicate. His new book serves as both a readable not-and-bolts history of monetary matters and a memorable primer on economic thinkers. Think of it as a pleasurable investment. Editor's recommendation.
The New York Times Book Review - Heidi N. Moore
…compulsively readable…Money is a fascinating and entertaining pep talk for bankers, economists and armchair revolutionaries dissatisfied with the current financial system, and an attempt to galvanize them into action.
Blending history and economic analysis in his engaging first book, economist and bond investor Martin explains the development of sovereign currency and its critically important function in modern economies. This is familiar territory for both economists and non-specialists, but Martin approaches his subject in entertaining fashion, discussing monetarism and monetary theory, from John Locke to the Federal Reserve System. He pauses to consider “excessive accumulation, consumption, and competition for status,” which he dismisses as “hard-wired into the human brain,” though he fails to consider greed in a world divided into asset holders and not. Martin stresses the connection between money and freedom, explaining why money is a “one of the most powerful and important tools of democratic government.” He calls for “radical reform,” but it’s difficult to find Martin’s magic rabbit or discern what his actual reform program would entail. His puzzling Socratic dialogue to try to explain things at the end falls flat. Though possessed of a meaningless subtitle, Martin’s book is breezy, fluent, discursive, and informed. It holds considerable appeal for investors, their bankers, and those drawn to the mechanics of wealth. 19 illus. Agent: Natasha Fairweather. (Mar.)
The use of money seems second nature to most, and perhaps many people do not think about how monetary systems work. However, a deep understanding of these systems can create new financial opportunities and advantages. Here, London-based economist Martin (formerly with the World Bank; associate of George Soro's Inst. for New Economic Thinking) shows that money is one of the greatest inventions of mankind, tracing its roots to interactions between Mesopotamia and ancient Greece. He chronicles the different kinds of money used by various cultures and through these discussions defines the concept of money. Martin skillfully draws parallels between the old world and the present-day and explains how individuals throughout the ages have made profits in money markets. The perspectives of great economic thinkers such as Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and John Maynard Keynes are included. VERDICT This insightful monetary history gives readers a better appreciation of money and its evolution and of current systems and financial events, especially crises. Because money is a complex and abstract concept, this book is geared toward readers with economic backgrounds or financial academic training in money and banking.—Caroline Geck, Camden Street Sch. Lib., Newark, NJ
What is money? If you think you know the answer, then you may not have thought hard enough about it, a problem that kings and commoners alike have shared throughout history. The Micronesian residents of the island of Yap, long a case study in the history of money, reckon currency by giant stones that, even if sunk in the ocean and therefore inaccessible, nonetheless have value. Their system matches the symbolic abstraction of money with a concrete basis for it. However, writes investor/economist Martin in this improbably lively account, that concreteness no longer underlies our modern economy: "The vast majority of our national money—around 90 percent in the US, for example, and 97 percent in the UK—has no physical existence at all." So is money merely symbolic? By one measure, perhaps. But Martin seeks a deeper understanding, relating money especially to power: If on one hand it served as an instrument of rule for sovereigns, it also reined in those sovereigns as something even mightier than they. By that light, as one medieval philosopher formulated it, money "is not the property of the sovereign but of the entire community that uses it." Martin expands on this provocative idea, suggesting that money is a system for allocating economic risk "by making a simultaneous promise of stability and freedom." All this talk can get quite heady, and that's not to mention the ancient Chinese proverb that "the fish is the last to know water"—i.e., those of us who use money are so deeply steeped in it that it's hard to think about, let alone answer the more important question: How much power should money have to govern our lives? Refreshingly free of jargon and long on ideas—including the thought that if it's money that got us into our current mess, it's money that can get us out of it.
Read an Excerpt
Excerpted from the Hardcover edition
1 What Is Money?
Everyone, except an economist, knows what “money” means, and even an economist can describe it in the course of a chapter or so . . .
—A.H. Quiggin, A Survey of Primitive Money: the Beginnings of Currency, p. 1
the island of stone money
The Pacific island of Yap was, at the beginning of the twentieth century, one of the most remote and inaccessible inhabited places on earth. An idyllic, subtropical paradise, nestled in a tiny archipelago nine degrees north of the equator and more than 300 miles from Palau, its closest neighbour, Yap had remained almost innocent of the world beyond Micronesia right up until the final decades of the nineteenth century. There had, it is true, been a brief moment of Western contact in 1731 when a group of intrepid Catholic missionaries had established a small base on the island. When their supply ship returned the following year, however, it discovered that the balmy, palm-scattered islands of Yap had not proved fertile ground for the Christian gospel. The entire mission had been massacred several months previously by local witch doctors aggrieved at the competition presented by the Good News. Yap was left to its own devices for another one hundred and forty years.
It was not until 1869 that the first European trading post—run by the German merchant firm of Godeffroy and sons—was established in the Yap archipelago. Once a few years had passed, with Godeffroy not only avoiding summary execution but prospering, Yap’s presence came to the attention of the Spanish, who by virtue of their colonial possessions in the Philippines—a mere 800 miles to the west—considered themselves the natural overlords of this part of Micronesia. The Spanish laid claim to the islands, and believed that they had achieved a fait accompli when in the summer of 1885 they erected a house and installed a Governor in it. They had not counted, however, on the tenacity of Bismarck’s Germany in matters of foreign policy. No island was so small, or so remote, as to be unworthy of the Imperial Foreign Ministry’s attention if it meant a potential addition to German power. The ownership of Yap became the subject of an international dispute. Eventually, the matter was referred—somewhat ironically, given the island’s track record—to arbitration by the Pope, who granted political control to Spain, but full commercial rights to Germany. But the Iron Chancellor had the last laugh. Within a decade and a half, Spain had lost a damaging war with America, and its ambitions in the Pacific had disintegrated. In 1899, Spain sold Yap to Germany for the sum of $3.3 million.
The absorption of Yap into the German Empire had one great benefit. It brought one of the more interesting and unusual monetary systems in history to the attention of the world. More specifically, it proved the catalyst for a visit by a brilliant and eccentric young American adventurer, William Henry Furness III. The scion of a prominent New England family, Furness had trained as a doctor before converting to anthropology and making his name with a popular account of his travels in Borneo. In 1903 he made a two-month visit to Yap, and published a broad survey of its physical and social make-up a few years later.1 He was immediately impressed by how much more remote and untouched it was than Borneo. Yet despite being a tiny island with only a few thousand inhabitants—“whose whole length and breadth is but a day’s walk,” as Furness described it—Yap turned out to have a remarkably complex society. There was a caste system, with a tribe of slaves, and special clubhouses lived in by fishing and fighting fraternities. There was a rich tradition of dancing and songs, which Furness took particular delight in recording for posterity. There was a vibrant native religion—as the missionaries had previously discovered to their cost—complete with an elaborate genesis myth locating the origins of the Yapese in a giant barnacle attached to some floating driftwood. But undoubtedly the most striking thing that Furness discovered on Yap was its monetary system.
The economy of Yap, such as it was, could hardly be called developed. The market extended to a bare three products—fish, coconuts, and Yap’s one and only luxury, sea cucumber. There was no other exchangeable commodity to speak of; no agriculture; few arts and crafts; the only domesticated animals were pigs and, since the Germans had arrived, a few cats; and there had been little contact or trade with outsiders. It was as simple and as isolated an economy as one could hope to find. Given these antediluvian conditions, Furness expected to find nothing more advanced than simple barter. Indeed, as he observed, “in a land where food and drink and ready-made clothes grow on trees and may be had for the gathering” it seemed possible that even barter itself would be an unnecessary sophistication.
The very opposite turned out to be true. Yap had a highly developed system of money. It was impossible for Furness not to notice it the moment that he set foot on the island, because its coinage was extremely unusual. It consisted of fei—“large, solid, thick stone wheels ranging in diameter from a foot to twelve feet, having in the centre a hole varying in size with the diameter of the stone, wherein a pole may be inserted sufficiently large and strong to bear the weight and facilitate transportation.” This stone money was originally quarried on Babelthuap, an island some 300 miles away in Palau, and had mostly been brought to Yap, so it was said, long ago. The value of the coins depended principally on their size, but also on the fineness of the grain and the whiteness of the limestone.
At first, Furness believed that this bizarre form of currency might have been chosen because, rather than in spite, of its extraordinary unwieldiness: “when it takes four strong men to steal the price of a pig, burglary cannot but prove a somewhat disheartening occupation,” he ventured. “As may be supposed, thefts of fei are almost unknown.” But as time went on, he observed that physical transportation of fei from one house to another was in fact rare. Numerous transactions took place—but the debts incurred were typically just offset against each other, with any outstanding balance carried forward in expectation of some future exchange. Even when open balances were felt to require settlement, it was not usual for fei to be physically exchanged. “The noteworthy feature of this stone currency,” wrote Furness, “is that it is not necessary for its owner to reduce it to possession. After concluding a bargain which involves the price of a fei too large to be conveniently moved, its new owner is quite content to accept the bare acknowledgement of ownership and without so much as a mark to indicate the exchange, the coin remains undisturbed on the former owner’s premises.”
When Furness expressed amazement at this aspect of the Yap monetary system, his guide told him an even more surprising story:
[T]here was in the village near by a family whose wealth was unquestioned—acknowledged by everyone—and yet no one, not even the family itself, had ever laid eye or hand on this wealth; it consisted of an enormous fei, whereof the size is known only by tradition; for the past two or three generations it had been and was at that time lying at the bottom of the sea!
This fei, it transpired, had been shipwrecked during a storm while in transit from Babelthuap many years ago. Nevertheless:
[I]t was universally conceded . . . that the mere accident of its loss overboard was too trifling to mention, and that a few hundred feet of water off shore ought not to affect its marketable value . . .
The purchasing power of that stone remains, therefore, as valid as if it were leaning visibly against the side of the owner’s house, and represents wealth as potentially as the hoarded inactive gold of a miser in the Middle Ages, or as our silver dollars stacked in the Treasury in Washington, which we never see or touch, but trade with on the strength of a printed certificate that they are there.
When it was published in 1910, it seemed unlikely that Furness’ eccentric travelogue would ever reach the notice of the economics profession. But eventually a copy happened to find its way to the editors of the Royal Economic Society’s Economic Journal, who assigned the book to a young Cambridge economist, recently seconded to the British Treasury on war duty: a certain John Maynard Keynes. The man who over the next twenty years was to revolutionise the world’s understanding of money and finance was astonished. Furness’ book, he wrote, “has brought us into contact with a people whose ideas on currency are probably more truly philosophical than those of any other country. Modern practice in regard to gold reserves has a good deal to learn from the more logical practices of the island of Yap.” Why it was that the greatest economist of the twentieth century believed the monetary system of Yap to hold such important and universal lessons is the subject of this book.
great minds think alike
What is money, and where does it come from?
A few years ago, over a drink, I posed these two questions to an old friend—a successful entrepreneur with a prospering business in the financial services industry. He responded with a familiar story. In primitive times, there was no money—just barter. When people needed something that they didn’t produce themselves, they had to find someone who had it and was willing to swap it for whatever they did produce. Of course, the problem with this system of barter exchange is that it was very inefficient. You had to find another person who had exactly what you wanted, and who in turn wanted exactly what you had got—and what is more, both at exactly the same time. So at a certain point, the idea emerged of choosing one thing to serve as a “medium of exchange.” This thing could in principle be anything—so long as, by general agreement, it was universally acceptable as payment. In practice, however, gold and silver have always been the most common choices, because they are durable, malleable, portable, and rare. In any case, whatever it was, this thing was from then on desirable not only for its own sake, but because it could be used to buy other things and to store up wealth for the future. This thing, in short, was money—and this is where money came from.
It’s a simple and powerful story. And as I explained to my friend, it is a theory of money’s nature and origins with a very ancient and distinguished pedigree. A version of it can be found in Aristotle’s Politics, the earliest treatment of the subject in the entire Western canon. It is the theory developed by John Locke, the father of classical political Liberalism, in his Second Treatise of Government. To cap it all, it is the very theory—almost to the letter—advocated by none other than Adam Smith in his chapter “Of the Origin and Use of Money” in the foundation text of modern economics, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations:
But when the division of labour first began to take place, this power of exchanging must frequently have been very much clogged and embarrassed in its operations . . . The butcher has more meat in his shop than he himself can consume, and the brewer and the baker would each of them be willing to purchase a part of it. But they have nothing to offer in exchange, except the productions of their respective trades, and the butcher is already provided with all the bread and beer which he has immediate occasion for . . . In order to avoid such situations, every prudent man in every period of society, after the first establishment of the division of labour, must naturally have endeavoured to manage his affairs in such a manner, as to have at all times by him, besides the peculiar produce of his own industry, a certain quantity of some one commodity or other, such as he imagined few other people would be likely to refuse in exchange for the produce of their industry.
Smith even shared my friend’s agnosticism as to which commodity would be chosen to serve as money:
Many different commodities, it is probable, were successively both thought of and employed for this purpose. In the rude ages of society, cattle are said to have been the most common instrument of commerce . . . Salt is said to be the common instrument of commerce and exchange in Abyssinia; a species of shells in some parts of the coast of India; dried cod in Newfoundland; tobacco in Virginia; sugar in some of our West India colonies; hides or dressed leather in some other countries; and there is to this day a village in Scotland where it is not uncommon, I am told, for a workman to carry nails instead of money to the baker’s shop or the alehouse.
And like my friend, Smith also believed that in general, gold, silver, and other metals were the most logical choices:
In all countries, however, men seem at last to have been determined by irresistible reasons to give the preference, for this employment, to metals above every other commodity. Metals can not only be kept with as little loss as any other commodity, scarce any thing being less perishable than they are, but they can likewise, without any loss, be divided into any number of parts, as by fusion of those parts can easily be re-united again; a quality which no other equally durable commodities possess, and which more than any other quality renders them fit to be the instruments of commerce and circulation.
So I told my friend he could congratulate himself. Without having studied economics at all, he had arrived at the same theory as the great Adam Smith. But that’s not all, I explained. This theory of money’s origins and nature is not just a historical curiosity like Ptolemy’s geocentric astronomy—a set of obsolete hypotheses long since superseded by more modern theories. On the contrary, it is found today in virtually all mainstream textbooks of economics.14 What’s more, its fundamental ideas have formed the bedrock of an immense body of detailed theoretical and empirical research on monetary questions over the last sixty years. Based on its assumptions, economists have designed sophisticated mathematical models to explore exactly why one commodity is chosen as money over all others and how much of it people will want to hold, and have constructed a vast analytical apparatus designed to explain every aspect of money’s value and use. It has provided the basis for the branch of economics—“macroeconomics” as it is known—which seeks to explain economic booms and busts, and to recommend how we can moderate these so-called business cycles by managing interest rates and government spending. In short, my friend’s ideas not only had history behind them. They remain today, amongst amateurs and experts alike, very much the conventional theory of money.