Rating: 
Summary: Good Stuff Inside and Out
Review: Call me superficial, but this book is as good as its author is handsome, which means it's great. What an incredibly good-looking, intelligent, articulate man. (Saw him speaking at a dinner meeting in New York City on C-SPAN.) Ferguson posits here a nearly heretical notion for many Americans to swallow -- that in times of plenty a rich nation ought to consider using its surplus to not only keep peace, but actively make peace around the world through pro-active and creative use of money and re-tooled military personnel. What a pleasure to hear that there are those like Ferguson who envision unselfish and cooperative ways to use tech-sector wealth -- that intellectuals vis-a-vis the cyber era are not all following Ayn Rand's unique brand of Darwinism - e.g., that only the fittest -- or richest --survive.
Rating:
Summary: Good Stuff Inside and Out
Review: Call me superficial, but this book is as good as its author is handsome, which means it's great. What an incredibly good-looking, intelligent, articulate man. (Saw him speaking at a dinner meeting in New York City on C-SPAN.) Ferguson posits here a nearly heretical notion for many Americans to swallow -- that in times of plenty a rich nation ought to consider using its surplus to not only keep peace, but actively make peace around the world through pro-active and creative use of money and re-tooled military personnel. What a pleasure to hear that there are those like Ferguson who envision unselfish and cooperative ways to use tech-sector wealth -- that intellectuals vis-a-vis the cyber era are not all following Ayn Rand's unique brand of Darwinism - e.g., that only the fittest -- or richest --survive.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent and Timely
Review: First, this book deserves more publicity and more praise. It deserves to be included in the ongoing debates between Francis Fukuyama's "End of History" approach, Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" and finally Kennedy's "Imperial Overstretch" Hypothesis.I haven't read such a well argued, informative and in addition entertaining non-fiction book since "Guns, Germs and Steel". I was overjoyed when that book won the recognition it deserved. I hope this book does as well. In addition, this book is important because it hits on today's news. Read the section on Debt management, and then see how you feel about Bush's tax cuts, or defence policy. This is not to say the book is partisan, but the author is a financial historian, and will bring up new ways of thinking about current topics. If your are interested in financial history, the link between finances and politics, you will find this book fascinating.
Rating: 
Summary: Troubling Conclusions
Review: In "The Cash Nexus: Money and Power in the Modern World, 1700-2000", Oxford historian Niall Ferguson attempts to show the link between capital and the power of the nation-state. Ferguson draws on 300 years of data gathered mostly from Western countries to synthesize his work. Ferguson uses the "square of power" model to explain how Western powers managed to grow from militarily, economically, and politically weak existences in pre-Renaissance times to the powerful nation-states which would come to rule most of the globe in the early 20th century. The four parts of the model are, in no particular order, representative democracy, an efficient tax collecting bureaucracy, an efficient bond market, and a politically independent central bank. Furthermore, Ferguson contends that these four institutions, especially the three capital related ones, did not develop spontaneously; they developed from the exigencies of war. Central banks, tax collecting bureaucracies and capital markets were created as a means for the Western nation-states to finance their wars for empire. Ferguson states that the ultimate winner of this struggle, Britain, did so because it had the strongest "square of power" foundation of any competing nation. Up to this point Ferguson has made a good showing of his data. Had he stopped at World War I, eveything would have been fine. However, Ferguson tries to draw conclusions and suggestions for the modern period from a time of imperial aggression. In fact, he attempts to make the case for a renewed imperial structure dominated by the United States. This argument falls very flat. "The Cash Nexus" does contain many good ideas. One is the increased freedom of labor mobility to match the free flows of capital which race around the world each day. His argument favoring an increased American hegmonic role undermines most of his work though. A more internationally active American military would have the reverse of the desired effect. It would actually destabilize the world instead of providing stability. A more internationally active American military would do more to provoke international wars than the less involved America we now have. In the end, Ferguson's final conclusions would do more damage to and undermine the current period of growing trade and capital flows.
Rating:
Summary: Troubling Conclusions
Review: In "The Cash Nexus: Money and Power in the Modern World, 1700-2000", Oxford historian Niall Ferguson attempts to show the link between capital and the power of the nation-state. Ferguson draws on 300 years of data gathered mostly from Western countries to synthesize his work. Ferguson uses the "square of power" model to explain how Western powers managed to grow from militarily, economically, and politically weak existences in pre-Renaissance times to the powerful nation-states which would come to rule most of the globe in the early 20th century. The four parts of the model are, in no particular order, representative democracy, an efficient tax collecting bureaucracy, an efficient bond market, and a politically independent central bank. Furthermore, Ferguson contends that these four institutions, especially the three capital related ones, did not develop spontaneously; they developed from the exigencies of war. Central banks, tax collecting bureaucracies and capital markets were created as a means for the Western nation-states to finance their wars for empire. Ferguson states that the ultimate winner of this struggle, Britain, did so because it had the strongest "square of power" foundation of any competing nation. Up to this point Ferguson has made a good showing of his data. Had he stopped at World War I, eveything would have been fine. However, Ferguson tries to draw conclusions and suggestions for the modern period from a time of imperial aggression. In fact, he attempts to make the case for a renewed imperial structure dominated by the United States. This argument falls very flat. "The Cash Nexus" does contain many good ideas. One is the increased freedom of labor mobility to match the free flows of capital which race around the world each day. His argument favoring an increased American hegmonic role undermines most of his work though. A more internationally active American military would have the reverse of the desired effect. It would actually destabilize the world instead of providing stability. A more internationally active American military would do more to provoke international wars than the less involved America we now have. In the end, Ferguson's final conclusions would do more damage to and undermine the current period of growing trade and capital flows.
Rating:
Summary: Troubling Conclusions
Review: In "The Cash Nexus: Money and Power in the Modern World, 1700-2000", Oxford historian Niall Ferguson attempts to show the link between capital and the power of the nation-state. Ferguson draws on 300 years of data gathered mostly from Western countries to synthesize his work. Ferguson uses the "square of power" model to explain how Western powers managed to grow from militarily, economically, and politically weak existences in pre-Renaissance times to the powerful nation-states which would come to rule most of the globe in the early 20th century. The four parts of the model are, in no particular order, representative democracy, an efficient tax collecting bureaucracy, an efficient bond market, and a politically independent central bank. Furthermore, Ferguson contends that these four institutions, especially the three capital related ones, did not develop spontaneously; they developed from the exigencies of war. Central banks, tax collecting bureaucracies and capital markets were created as a means for the Western nation-states to finance their wars for empire. Ferguson states that the ultimate winner of this struggle, Britain, did so because it had the strongest "square of power" foundation of any competing nation. Up to this point Ferguson has made a good showing of his data. Had he stopped at World War I, eveything would have been fine. However, Ferguson tries to draw conclusions and suggestions for the modern period from a time of imperial aggression. In fact, he attempts to make the case for a renewed imperial structure dominated by the United States. This argument falls very flat. "The Cash Nexus" does contain many good ideas. One is the increased freedom of labor mobility to match the free flows of capital which race around the world each day. His argument favoring an increased American hegmonic role undermines most of his work though. A more internationally active American military would have the reverse of the desired effect. It would actually destabilize the world instead of providing stability. A more internationally active American military would do more to provoke international wars than the less involved America we now have. In the end, Ferguson's final conclusions would do more damage to and undermine the current period of growing trade and capital flows.
Rating: 
Summary: Fascinating, if a little unfocused
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: What? No introduction by Maggie Thatcher?
Review: It's pretty obvious from the outset where Ferguson's arguments are going in this book and what his political philosophy and world-view is. He states in quite plainly in the end. In contrast to Paul Kennedy who argued in THE RISE AND FALL OF GREAT POWERS that "imperial overstretch" is the economic causal factor that was directly linked with "Great Power" decline, Ferguson sees political will (or the lack thereof) and "understretch" as the problem. He says in the world today "we've got economic globalization very much on a 19th century model" however "there isn't a global policeman with the kind of interests Britain had then". The real difficulty in his view is that "the leaders of the one state with the economic resources to make the world a better place [the US] lack the guts to do it." OK, so Ferguson sees the US adopting an "imperial" approach to world affairs, and he supports Friedman and Fukuyama who argued that the spread of capitalism and democracy are neccessary for freedom to bloom. Before we look at whether he convincingly makes his point there is a basic question that puts this whole discussion in context. How persuasive can a British writer be in directing his argument to Americans for a more economically activist role by their country, and how are we supposed to read this in our new world of narrower priorities? If our American economic and political system is to be supported and encouraged, and we are his intended audience, then who is the target of Fergusons criticism? It's axiomatic that it's Marxist historians and supporters of historicism as Ferguson sees nothing "deterministic" or directional about economic history. Ferguson instead convincingly argues that a CASH NEXUS exists and it is there, in the linkage between money and power, where the real story lies. Indeed he says quite clearly that "money does not make the world go round...it has been political events - above all,wars - that have shaped the institutions of modern economic life: tax-collecting, bureaucracies, central banks, bond markets, stock exchanges." The whole book is a development on this point. Financial statistics and bond yields are presented in chapters such as "The Money Printers: Default and Debasement", "Of Interest", "Dead Weights and Tax-eaters: The social History of Finance" and "Bubbles and Busts: Stock Markets in the Long Run". These chapters are obviously analytical and there is sometimes a flood of data that tends to dampen enjoyment of the book. The latter half of the book where Ferguson spends more time making the connections between money, power, politics, culture, and warfare and less time analyzing, is both more enjoyable to read and more instructive. It's an interesting book well written and certainly very opinionated. It's broad ranging covering the last 300 years of western economic development and interdisciplinary in scope touching on philosophy, political science, geography as well as it's main subjects of history, finance, and economics. Opinionated history like this is always contentious but it's equally always enjoyable to read.
Rating:
Summary: Draws further connections between money and power
Review: Niall Ferguson's Cash Nexus draws further connections between money and power issues from 1700-2000, revealing a radical new history of the relationship between economics and politics in the course of 300 years of world history.
Rating:
Summary: Impressive Research and Sure to Upset
Review: Niall Ferguson's The Cash Nexus (Money and Power in the Modern World 1700 - 2000) is sure to upset many. It is an impressive look at economic history for the last three hundred years in order to show that there is nothing deterministic about the apparent success of capitalism and democracy in our time. This is the most effective aspect of the book as the author makes a clear case for smashing the myth that the "End of History" has been achieved by the double helix of capitilism and democracy. It is effective in demonstrating the complexity behind the ups and downs in the various fates of countries. He relies on Britain and America predominantly and they both figure into his concluding discussion of the need for America to become involved in exporting democracy and free markets to "rogue" states (never clearly defined), by military means if necessary. This somewhat startingly conclusion is too simplistically presented at the end of the book, particularly as the theories and ideas throughout the rest of the book are far more broad ranging and complex. Nonetheless, the ideas are presented well and argued competently. Some of the economics did soar over my head and while not agreeing with everything, the book does give one much to think about. It is sure to be a controversial read that has some interesting ideas.
| 
