Reviews

The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World by Niall Ferguson

ranahabib's review against another edition

Go to review page

3.0

7.5/10 (Would’ve been an 8 if chapters 4&5 didn’t bore me so much)

First three chapters (banks, bonds, & markets) were the most interesting

Chapters 4&5 (insurance & mortgages/housing) were the least interesting

Given the nature of the topic, the book suffers from information overload (which i was expecting anyway). However, I give Ferguson props for his ambition in writing this book. Covering the financial history of the world is no easy task.

Pros:
- I like that he split it up into different financial sectors as opposed to different regions.

- I love learning about world history so I enjoyed the book for the most part.

Cons:
- I hated Ferguson’s writing style; his sentences were long winded & wordy, which was annoying.

manguar's review against another edition

Go to review page

Will pick back up later

embug's review against another edition

Go to review page

2.0

revisionist, elitist, british. a more neutral, better-explained version is found in "Money: The True Story of a Made-Up Thing" by Jacob Goldstein

bub_9's review against another edition

Go to review page

2.0

Err, it's okay. The premise is very interesting, but I don't always think a successful job is done tracing any cultural, political, or social line through history and across geographies as the title seems to suggest it will aim to. Instead, it feels like a disparate set of (disappointingly earthbound - for example, do I really need more time on one Goldman CEO than Karl Marx, in a chapter about capital?) episodes (apparently it was based on a TV show? and it shows) that are nonetheless insightful, though definitely tending towards the jargonistic and with superficial explanations when they are provided (if at all).

foxon's review against another edition

Go to review page

3.0

This was good, however I was expecting a more historical view and less about more current events.

emiann2023's review against another edition

Go to review page

4.0

Honestly, finance and economics have always been tougher subjects for me to grasp. But I'm trying to learn. So in that respect, this was helpful, in that it explained much of the history of common things we take for granted today. Insurance in particular. I still had sections where I felt dizzied by all of the technical jargon and in-depth descriptions, but it certainly wasn't the worst I've ever known.

All in all it was an enlightening if also confusing read.

nick_jenkins's review against another edition

Go to review page

It says quite a lot that Ferguson of all people judges the US for its recklessness, both geopolitically and in terms of using the market to provide what should be public goods (like health care and, to some extent, housing). His castigations are often self-serving—he's obviously at pains to distinguish (his) smart imperialism from Bush's dumbass imperialism—but are a reminder of how fanatical the market fundamentalists really were and are.

outdotaurusedibleread's review against another edition

Go to review page

informative medium-paced

4.5

annemariewhelehan's review against another edition

Go to review page

informative fast-paced

4.0

An informative whistle stop tour of the historical world of finance which I enjoyed. The challenge with books like this is you have to have some understanding before you read, but then you read stuff you already know. I found the stuff I didn’t live through, going back centuries rather than decades, the more interesting. The book is only up to 2009 and I wouldn’t have minded a more up to date edition. I always find the behavioural finance thinking fascinating and the author does a good job of summarising these at the end. 

jroberts1995's review against another edition

Go to review page

3.0

Like The Square and the Tower, Ferguson's financial history starts promisingly before becoming a series of disconnected essays. The conclusion only superficially ties the preceding chapters together, and so I think The Ascent of Money needed to be either longer or more streamlined with some of the case studies dropped.