TL;DR
In Thomas Levenson’s Money for Nothing the scientific revolution coincides with England’s need for financial innovation, and Levenson depicts the turmoil, hope, promise, and despair with a novelist’s eye. Highly Recommended.
From the Publisher
The sweeping story of how the greatest minds of the Scientific Revolution applied their new ideas to people, money, and markets—and along the way, invented modern finance.
Money for Nothing chronicles the moment when the needs of war, discoveries of natural philosophy, and ambitions of investors collided. It’s about how the Scientific Revolution intertwined with finance to set England—and the world—off in an entirely new direction.
At the dawn of the eighteenth century, England was running out of money due to a prolonged war with France. Parliament tried raising additional funds by selling debt to its citizens, taking in money now with the promise of interest later. It was the first permanent national debt, but still they needed more. They turned to the stock market—a relatively new invention itself—where Isaac Newton’s new mathematics of change over time, which he applied to the motions of the planets and the natural world, were fast being applied to the world of money. What kind of future returns could a person expect on an investment today? The Scientific Revolution could help. In the hub of London’s stock market—Exchange Alley—the South Sea Company hatched a scheme to turn pieces of the national debt into shares of company stock, and over the spring of 1720 the plan worked brilliantly. Stock prices doubled, doubled again, and then doubled once more, getting everyone in London from tradespeople to the Prince of Wales involved in money mania that consumed the people, press, and pocketbooks of the empire.
Unlike science, though, with its tightly controlled experiments, the financial revolution was subject to trial and error on a grand scale, with dramatic, sometimes devastating, consequences for people’s lives. With England at war and in need of funds and “stock-jobbers” looking for any opportunity to get in on the action, this new world of finance had the potential to save the nation—but only if it didn’t bankrupt it first.
Review: Money for Nothing
Thomas Levenson’s Money for Nothing was the historical book I didn’t know I wanted to read. I picked it up because the description promised it would show how the scientific revolution affected the concept of money. Levenson delivered. Money for Nothing examines the process of money becoming an ever-more abstract concept. During Newton’s time, England faced a number of unique monetary issues from the metal of their coins being worth more than the face value to untenable national debt to insurance betting to stock bubbles. Despite being roughly 300 years ago, England faced modern financial troubles. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Levenson says that this period starts the formation of modern finance. He lays it out in an intriguing and well written way. While the focus is how money evolved into ever more abstract forms, Levenson uses people and their lives to convey the concept. His writing on Newton fascinated me, and I’ll have to check out his other book, Newton and the Counterfeiter, because of this. Sir Isaac is an amazing person in the history of science, for sure, but just in general, he led an interesting life, including time at the Royal Mint. Levenson writes Newton so well because he focuses on the person, both good and bad. The author brings this same attention to humanity for all the people in the book, and there’s lots and lots of names here. While some sought to make finance a purely reason-based pursuit, the South Sea Bubble shows that reason had little to do with the rise in price. Archibald Hutcheson used mathematical reasoning to show that the South Sea stock was overpriced. He printed pamphlets about it, and yet no one believed him. Levenson’s explanation of Hutcheson’s work and why it mattered despite being ignored is wonderful. He explains the revolutionary shift in thinking Hutcheson made. Would the bubble have been avoided if Hutcheson was taken seriously? It’s hard to say, but maybe it wouldn’t have been as bad.
Individuals
When I started reading, I noticed a neat pattern. Each chapter focused on an individual and their contribution to the financial issues of the day. For example, chapter one focused on Newton, two on William Petty, and three on Edmund Halley. But quickly the list grew too long for me to keep up with, and I got caught up reading, forgetting to break to make name notes. There are many, many people in this book, but Levenson does such a good job of describing and presenting them, that they all remain distinct. It helps that a number of these people are well-known, but even those who aren’t receive attention and care. I appreciated the time Levenson took to ‘flesh out’ his characters. We learn about Hutcheson, John Blunt, Daniel Defoe, and many more. Each fit in without derailing the overall narrative. It’s really, really well done.
When learning about historical figures, we tend to learn only a fraction, and we think its their whole lives. For example, Newton did more than just invent calculus and gravity. But those are the things I learned in school about him, and other aspects of his life received no thought from me. Sorry, Isaac, old chum. But one of the great things about books like Money for Nothing is that the audience gets to see famous figures from history living life and doing things that they aren’t famous for. Seeing historical figures getting caught up in Exchange Alley’s rush towards the Bubble made them all the more human, and I think that’s a great thing. It’s hard to look at figures of the past, giants of society, and remember that they occasionally drank too much or made bad mundane decisions occasionally. With all the people moving in and out of this book, Levenson gives a taste of how the South Sea Company affected the whole of London.
Nonfiction that Reads Like a Novel
Caution is Required
This book documents the dangers of modern finance, and it shows that most financial innovations are done through trial and error. This method is necessary but can be disastrous, as the book so thoroughly shows. Money for Nothing demonstrates that risk increases as money moves from the hard backing of land, silver, labor, product, etc. to more abstract concepts. What does this say, though, about fiat currency? Does Levenson believe that a nation’s money should have a hard backing? I’d love to know his take on Modern Monetary Theory, a la The Deficit Myth.
I do agree that we need to be cautious with innovating and evolving money. Also, I agree that the more abstract money gets, the harder it is for non-finance people to understand. But I think fiat currency is important; in The People, No, Thomas Frank says the need for fiat currency led to the formation of the Populist Party around the end of the 1800’s. I don’t know enough to articulate the difference between a fiat currency versus a stock derivative, but I think there is one. I could be wrong; I’m not an expert in the field. They have a commonality in that they are abstract versions of money. Maybe it’s the level of perceived risk that I see between the two. Based on Money for Nothing, I’d like to hear Levenson’s analysis of the two concepts.
Conclusion
Thomas Levenson’s Money for Nothing shows the lessons from the South Sea Bubble apply today as much as back then. The scientific revolution coincided with a time when England needed financial innovation, and Levenson depicts the turmoil, hope, promise, and despair with a novelist’s eye. Money for Nothing proves that we often fail to learn from history, especially when there’s an easy dollar to be made.
Money for Nothing by Thomas Levenson becomes available from Random House on August 18th, 2020.