As I said I am only in the first chapter so maybe she is just setting me up to knock me down and really drive in some points. I am not sure. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? the book incase you did know is all you can eat lust greed and the new capitalism.

Believe me, the book is fascinating. Too often we lose a sense of historical perspective, and Linda McQuaig (as well as William Greider in analogous works in the USA) bring this back, by retelling stories in new and fresh ways in several of their books.

I'm just twitching my tail wanting to tell you more, but you've only read the first bit, and I REALLY don't want to spoil it for you.

However I will leave you with this - McQuaig's intro chapter is designed to get you thinking about the ways in which society used to take more care with what it allowed financial transactions to be about - and this probably ensured that people were more realistic about what money was supposed to be for... which is to say that money is simply a way of getting something you want by exchanging the product of your labor.

Now, having said this, I grant that the Middle Ages were no picnic. But the lesson to be taken away is that even pre-Middle-Ages, the "market" was not an all-pervading entity. In Roman times, for example, the height of achievement was to be found in being an excellent general, or senator. In Greek times, the height of achievement was (in Sparta) to be an excellent military officer, or (in Athens) in the arts and/or political involvement, or mathematics.

Since the 18th century, roughly, with some notable exceptions (for example, 1930 to 1970), the height of achievement has universally been found in how much money you can accumulate, or how much wealth you command.