Product Description

Acclaimed historian Niall Ferguson offers a radical new history of the links between politics and economics, drawing unsettling conclusions about the future of capitalism and democracy. . Conventional wisdom has long claimed that economic change is the prime mover of political change, whether in the age of industry or Internet. But is it? Ferguson thinks it is high time we re-examined the link-the nexus, in Thomas Carlyle's phrase-between economics and politics. His central argument is that the conflicting impulses of sex, violence, and power are together more powerful than money. *Among Ferguson's startling claims are: * Nothing has done more to transform the world economy than war, yet wars themselves do not have primarily economic causes. * The present age of economic globalization is coinciding-paradoxically-with political and military fragmentation. * Financial crises are frequently caused by unforeseen political events rather than economic fluctuations. * The relationship between prosperity and government popularity is largely illusory. * Since political and economic liberalization are not self-perpetuating, the so-called triumph of democracy worldwide may be short-lived. * A bold synthesis of political history and modern economic theory, Cash Nexus will transform the landscape of modern history and draw challenging conclusions about the prospects of both capitalism and democracy. *.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #31789 in Books
• Published on: 2002-01-31
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 576 pages

Customer Reviews

Highly Recommended!
It would be a mistake to emphasize the word "cash" in this book's ambivalent title without giving equal weight to the word that follows, "nexus." A nexus is the bond between two disparate things and, indeed, this is a book about the intersection of power and money. Its thesis, to the frustration of economic determinists everywhere, is that while money matters, other things matter more, at least when it comes to the cultural chessboard of international politics. One might quibble that author Niall Ferguson underemphasizes the extent to which competition for economically vital scarce resources leads to war. The other caveat is that he refers to the U.S.'s reluctance to go to war with a pre-Iraq state of mind. Yet, the author is an accomplished historian who capably supports his arguments. He manages overall to portray economic history in all its rich nuance, detail and complexity. His premise that war, not economics or politics, is the great engine that has driven the evolution of the modern welfare state is as enlightening as it is chilling. We highly recommend this book to the lay reader with a developed interest in history, politics and, especially, economics. However, a warning is in order: Those who only read the headlines may find this just a little too deep.

Fascinating, if a little unfocused
In this monumental work, Professor Niall Ferguson traces the evolution of and relationship between money, the state and war. Beginning with a section on taxes (the earliest form of large-scale finance), the book continues with a history of bonds, currency and finance. Then, there is a great deal of information on how these financial institutions have influenced society. And, most importantly, the final chapters of the book look at money and finance on a global scale, analyzing everything including stock "bubbles", gold and military success and failure. This book was written in September 2000, which means that much of the author's data is right up-to-date!

The above description of this book does not begin to do justice to it. The author's knowledge is obviously encyclopedic, and this book covers a vast multitude of subjects relating to money and power. Indeed, my one complaint against this book is that, at times, does seem to meander from subject to subject, seeming to lose track of the point. However, that said, this is a fascinating book, one well worth taking the time to read.

As an aside, I must say that the author does seem to severely undermine Paul Kennedy's (author of The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers) concept of "imperial overstretch." Instead he raises up the possibility that countries have experienced "understretch" leading them into costly later wars (such as the British Empire before World War I), and that America may be understretching right now.