I just started, and am already thoroughly enjoying, [amazon_link id=”0007225741″ target=”_blank” ]The Information[/amazon_link] by James Gleick (yes, I’m late to this 2011 book).
[amazon_image id=”0007225741″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Information: A History, A Theory, A Flood[/amazon_image]
This sentence in the intro struck a chord:
“Economics is recognizing itself as an information science, now that money itself is completing a developmental arc from matter to bits, stored in computer memory and magnetic strips.”
This was written before the Bitcoin mania, of course. A few earlier writers had made a similar point – David Graeber’s [amazon_link id=”1612191819″ target=”_blank” ]Debt [/amazon_link]depicts credit as social relations, while the idea is in the very title of Keith Hart’s [amazon_link id=”1861972083″ target=”_blank” ]The Memory Bank[/amazon_link] (2001). And digital money guru Dave Birch has been onto this point for years.
[amazon_image id=”1861972083″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Memory Bank: Money in an Unequal World[/amazon_image]
I was curious about the book but never go round to ordering. Is it worth reading on a flight sometime?
A few pages in, I’d say definitely yes.
I’m always tempted by a book on money ! This review
http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/RWR12A45KDPGD/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0007225741&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=
puts me off for the moment, though. My fear is it presents ‘a view of information shorn of meaning and context’. But of course I’ll read your review of it with interest, Diane !
I’m actually just finishing Keith Hart’s book, which has been fun even though, for me, it doesn’t really quite work. The book that keeps popping back into my mind is the Mary Poovey one, you reviewed some months back. I’m going to end up reading that, eventually! Mostly because I’ve become such a fan of Marc Shell’s work.
Shell & (I guess) the other ‘New Economic Criticism’ folks recognise the ‘features’ of Money. Broadly mathematical – information theory – approaches seem ‘function’ focused and so lose the ‘meaning and context’ that ‘features’ give us.
Incidentally, I think Graeber would disagree with the idea that ‘money itself is completing a developmental arc from matter to bits’. My understanding is that for him, credit/debt relations precede coinage. This is a common view. Grierson’s famous quote is that ‘Money lies behind coinage’. Whilst a ‘developmental arc’ might work for some to describe a history of currency, it makes no sense (for me) in terms of Money.
Still enjoying Gleick although it’s certainly not a history or overview. … Not sure I completely agree with you about there being no ‘developmental arc’ at all – I do think new technologies enable something distinctive.