Money isn't real. Well, it is, but the way we value it depends entirely on the collective delusions and stubbornness of a few people in very expensive suits. If you want to understand why your grocery bill is insane or why the housing market feels like a fever dream, you have to go back to the guys who accidentally broke the world a century ago. Liaquat Ahamed’s Lords of Finance isn't just a history book. It’s a 500-page warning label.
He focuses on four specific men: Montagu Norman (Bank of England), Émile Moreau (Banque de France), Hjalmar Schacht (Reichsbank), and Benjamin Strong (Federal Reserve Bank of New York). They were the central bankers. The "Lords." And honestly? They were kind of a mess.
The Gold Standard Obsession in Lords of Finance
Imagine being so obsessed with a yellow metal that you're willing to let millions of people starve just to keep its price "stable." That’s the core tension Ahamed explores. After World War I, the world was a financial wreck. Europe was buried in debt, and Germany was dealing with reparations that were basically impossible to pay. But the "Lords" had a plan: go back to the gold standard.
They thought it was the only way to bring back the "Gilded Age" stability.
It wasn't.
Hjalmar Schacht is one of the most fascinating, and frankly terrifying, characters Ahamed profiles. He was a genius at stabilizing the German Mark after the hyperinflation of 1923, but he was also incredibly arrogant. He basically played a game of chicken with the rest of the world. Then you have Montagu Norman, who was a literal eccentric—he used to travel under a pseudonym and suffered from what we’d probably call severe anxiety or nervous breakdowns today.
These weren't robotic, calculating geniuses. They were flawed, tired men making guesses based on 19th-century theories that no longer applied to a post-war world. Lords of Finance shows that the Great Depression wasn't just a "market cycle." It was a policy choice.
Why Benjamin Strong Changed Everything
Benjamin Strong is arguably the "hero" of the book, or at least the most tragic figure. He was the head of the New York Fed when it was arguably more powerful than the actual Federal Reserve Board in D.C. He realized that if the U.S. didn't help Europe, the whole system would collapse.
📖 Related: Private Credit News Today: Why the Golden Age is Getting a Reality Check
Strong worked closely with Norman. They were friends. They took vacations together. This personal relationship drove global monetary policy. Think about that for a second. The interest rates affecting millions of workers were decided because two guys had a nice chat on a transatlantic steamship.
But Strong died in 1928.
When he died, the "brain" of the global financial system essentially stopped working. Ahamed argues that if Strong had lived, the 1929 crash might have just been a bad correction instead of a decade-long catastrophe. Without his leadership, the Fed turned inward. They tightened credit when they should have loosened it. They let banks fail because they thought "cleansing" the system was moral.
It wasn't moral. It was a disaster.
The French Connection and the Hoarding of Gold
Émile Moreau is often the "villain" in these historical narratives, though Ahamed gives him a fair shake. France wanted revenge for the war. They wanted to be the financial capital of Europe, displacing London. So, they started hoarding gold.
By the late 1920s, the U.S. and France held the vast majority of the world's gold. This sucked the liquidity out of everyone else. If you were a country like Britain, trying to stay on the gold standard while your gold was flowing to Paris and New York, you had to keep interest rates sky-high to stop the bleeding.
High interest rates mean no growth. No growth means unemployment.
👉 See also: Syrian Dinar to Dollar: Why Everyone Gets the Name (and the Rate) Wrong
Ahamed makes it clear: the gold standard acted like a "golden fetter." It tied every country together, so when one fell, they all fell. It prevented governments from reacting to the crisis. They couldn't print money to help people because they didn't have the gold to back it up.
Modern Echoes: Are We Repeating the Lords' Mistakes?
You might think, "Who cares about 1929?"
You should.
In 2008, Ben Bernanke—who was then the Chair of the Federal Reserve—explicitly referenced the lessons from the era described in Lords of Finance. He was a scholar of the Great Depression. He knew that letting the banking system collapse was a mistake the world couldn't afford to repeat. That’s why we saw the massive bailouts and "quantitative easing."
But the book hits differently in 2026.
We’re seeing a resurgence of nationalism. We’re seeing trade wars. We’re seeing central banks struggle with inflation in a way they haven't in decades. The "Lords" of today—the heads of the ECB, the Fed, and the Bank of Japan—are facing the same pressures:
- The tension between domestic needs and international stability.
- The temptation to use currency as a weapon.
- The terrifying reality that economic "models" don't always account for human panic.
Ahamed won the Pulitzer for this book because he humanized the numbers. He showed that the "invisible hand" of the market is actually just the very visible, very shaky hands of people in boardrooms.
✨ Don't miss: New Zealand currency to AUD: Why the exchange rate is shifting in 2026
The Hyperinflation Nightmare
If you want to understand the psychological scar on the German psyche that still dictates European policy today, read the chapters on the 1923 inflation. People were literally carrying baskets of money to buy a loaf of bread. By the time they got to the bakery, the price had doubled.
Schacht "fixed" it by creating a new currency backed by land, basically a giant bluff that the public happened to believe. It worked, but it left a legacy of fear. That fear of inflation is why, a decade later, the Germans were so hesitant to spend money to fight unemployment, which helped pave the way for a certain extremist dictator.
History isn't just dates. It's a chain reaction of bad math and hurt feelings.
Lords of Finance proves that the biggest threat to the global economy isn't usually a "black swan" event. It's the intellectual rigidity of the people in charge. When the world changes, the rules have to change too. The four bankers in Ahamed’s book were trying to play a game that had already ended.
They weren't "evil." They were just wrong. And when you're a central banker, being wrong is the most expensive mistake you can make.
How to Apply These Insights Today
Stop looking at the stock market as a reflection of the "real" economy and start looking at it as a reflection of liquidity and central bank policy. That’s the real takeaway.
- Watch the Central Bank Narratives: Don't just look at the rate hikes. Listen to the tone. Are they being rigid? Are they obsessed with a single metric (like the 2% inflation target) the way the Lords were obsessed with gold? Rigidity is a sell signal.
- Diversify Beyond Single Systems: The "Lords" era showed that when the dominant monetary system fails, it fails all at once. If your entire net worth is tied to one currency or one regulatory environment, you're vulnerable to the same "fetters" that broke 1930s Europe.
- Study the Personalities: Follow the biographies of current Fed governors or ECB members. Their personal biases—whether they are "hawks" or "doves"—matter more than the spreadsheets they publish.
- Understand Debt Cycles: Read the book specifically to see how debt-deflation spirals work. When everyone tries to pay off debt at the same time, money disappears from the economy, making the remaining debt even harder to pay. If you see this pattern starting in the housing or commercial real estate sectors, it's time to get defensive.
The history Liaquat Ahamed laid out isn't a museum piece. It’s a map of the holes in the ground we are currently walking around. Knowing where they are won't stop the ground from shaking, but it might keep you from falling in.