What do you think?
Rate this book
Henry Spearman #2
The Fatal Equilibrium
At Harvard, tenure decisions are a matter of life -- or death.
For Dennis Gossen, the economics department whiz kid currently being considered for tenure, it's definitely death. When he's turned down by the high-and-mighty Promotion and Tenure Committee, Gossen commits suicide.
A Question of Cost Accounting...
Or does he? It's hard to imagine why a young man with a brilliant scholarly future -- at Harvard or not -- would come up with an equation in which the opportunity cost of killing himself (a high price, considering his potential earnings) would be outweighed by the emotional cost of failing to receive tenure.
... Or Utility?
Then two members of the P and T Committee are murdered, and it becomes clear to Professor Henry Spearman of the Economics Department that the killer must be on the committee. But which of his illustrious colleagues would have significantly increased his -- or her -- utility (i.e., happiness) by murdering a faculty member or two? Or three?
For Dennis Gossen, the economics department whiz kid currently being considered for tenure, it's definitely death. When he's turned down by the high-and-mighty Promotion and Tenure Committee, Gossen commits suicide.
A Question of Cost Accounting...
Or does he? It's hard to imagine why a young man with a brilliant scholarly future -- at Harvard or not -- would come up with an equation in which the opportunity cost of killing himself (a high price, considering his potential earnings) would be outweighed by the emotional cost of failing to receive tenure.
... Or Utility?
Then two members of the P and T Committee are murdered, and it becomes clear to Professor Henry Spearman of the Economics Department that the killer must be on the committee. But which of his illustrious colleagues would have significantly increased his -- or her -- utility (i.e., happiness) by murdering a faculty member or two? Or three?
208 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published August 28, 1985
17 people are currently reading
274 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews
March 4, 2021
Mi Bonita Esposa had to read this in college....I read this because it was your book LLB!
January 10, 2020
Another enjoyable economics-based mystery! I was truly impressed at how the authors were sort of doing a satire on their own profession, by making this whole plot about a tenure committee. I do think that this book had more blatant Econ theory thrown in, in less creative ways throughout, whereas Books #1 and #4 were ever so slightly more subtle in that regard. But a very nerdily-enjoyable read.
November 26, 2020
If you like who-dun-it mystery novels with a large side helping of economics this is a pretty good book.
August 17, 2014
Intriguing and a bit mysterious. Some basic economic concepts and principles are nicely blended into the plots. As a graduate student in economics, I was surprised to find that some of the fundamental methodologies adopted by economists would be demeaned by scholars in other disciplines. Though this book is purely imaginative, I think the authors borrow a lot from the reality in the sense that how much pressure the idea of getting a tenure puts on junior faculty. I would recommend this book to undergraduates who are interested in economics and graduates who have ambitions in academia.
June 10, 2016
I loved the econ parts of it but these guys (Marshall Jevons is a pseudonym for a team of writers) aren't necessarily good writers or good story tellers. At times it felt like they were putting in filler to make the story longer -- and they have a strange penchant for interior decorating/design; in every scene it seemed they had to tell me the color of the carpet and drapes. That said, as someone who never took econ in college, those parts were fascinating enough to make it worth it for me and I've already bought another one of their books. I hope it's as instructive.
November 12, 2018
One of the worst books I've ever read. Filled with lots of racist and anti-semitic tidbits. Reads like it was written by a 15 year old boy who thinks he's VERY smart and DEFINITELY going to Harvard.
I had to read this for my MBA program's microeconomics class for some reason. Don't read if you don't have to.
I had to read this for my MBA program's microeconomics class for some reason. Don't read if you don't have to.
December 19, 2023
The Fatal Equilibrium was an assigned reading for my upcoming ECON 100 class. It’s set around the promotion of the young Harvard economics professor Dennis Gossen. Dr. Henry Spearman, a tenured professor at the university, is the main protagonist. When the Promotion and Tenure Committee rejects Gossen, he is found dead, allegedly by suicide. Two professors on the committee, Foster Barret and Morrison Bell, are also found murdered a day later. Dennis’ girlfriend, Melissa Shannon, is found guilty of the murders, but Henry Spearman remains uneasy. Through economic logic, Spearman comes to the realization that the dean of the university, Denton Clegg, is the true culprit. The book incorporated elementary economic concepts smoothly, usually through conversations between Spearman and his misinformed colleagues. The buildup of the plot was well executed as well, with an appropriate amount of exposition and tension building up to the tragedies. It was doing everything right, besides having extremely formal dialogue, until the very end, when I was left unsatisfied.
Henry Spearman reasoned Professor Denton Clegg to be the murderer based on illogical data in his book on the people of the Santa Cruz islands. Clegg wrote that a basket of yams costs 4 to 5 red feather belts a 25% difference, while a canoe varied between 780 to 1100 red feather belts, a 41% difference. Spearman’s conclusion was that the canoe, a much larger purchase, should vary in price less than a small purchase, such as the yams. According to the theory of utility maximization, a customer would spend less time searching for the cheapest yams compared to the cheapest canoe, because the time cost of searching for yams yields a much smaller return in savings. This means that canoe prices should be bunched together, or else the more expensive ones would never sell. Spearman took this as evidence that the data was falsified, and that Denton Clegg was a fraud. Dennis Gossen came to the same conclusion prior to his murder, which made targets of him and those he confided in. I agree with this concept, but given the context, why should it be surprising that canoes vary in price? Not every canoe craftsman is made equal. There’s bound to be more skilled craftsmen who make higher quality canoes. And his is an island secluded from society – they use feathers as currency, after all – so it’s not like they have factories that make every canoe the same! Logically, I would come up with a conclusion that lined up with Clegg’s falsified data. There is room for a way higher gap in quality between the worst and best canoe than between the worse and best baskets of yams, assuming baskets containing rotten yams aren’t considered. Spearman’s conclusion fits the narrative, but I disagree with him, and would have liked some further explanation against my case.
Here’s another reason I was unsatisfied. In chapter four, Oliver Wu was contemplating Dennis Gossen’s research on his way home. As a sociologist focused on criminology, Oliver Wu was weighing the costs and benefits of certain crimes in his head. When he came to the crime of murder, he suddenly had an epiphany: the fatal equilibrium. This happened on page 39 and was never revealed or mentioned for the rest of the book. I am forced to assume that Denton Clegg’s own costs and benefits to murdering Gossen and the two professors show this “fatal equilibrium.” However, I would have preferred if Oliver Wu’s views were expressed, as he isn’t an economist and could’ve offered something new and interesting.
The ending of any story is crucial. It’s one of the reasons everyone now hates the Game of Thrones show and why I will never waste hours upon hours watching it. The Fatal Equilibrium really captured my attention, but because the reasoning that solved the murder didn’t make sense, I can’t rate it highly at all.
Henry Spearman reasoned Professor Denton Clegg to be the murderer based on illogical data in his book on the people of the Santa Cruz islands. Clegg wrote that a basket of yams costs 4 to 5 red feather belts a 25% difference, while a canoe varied between 780 to 1100 red feather belts, a 41% difference. Spearman’s conclusion was that the canoe, a much larger purchase, should vary in price less than a small purchase, such as the yams. According to the theory of utility maximization, a customer would spend less time searching for the cheapest yams compared to the cheapest canoe, because the time cost of searching for yams yields a much smaller return in savings. This means that canoe prices should be bunched together, or else the more expensive ones would never sell. Spearman took this as evidence that the data was falsified, and that Denton Clegg was a fraud. Dennis Gossen came to the same conclusion prior to his murder, which made targets of him and those he confided in. I agree with this concept, but given the context, why should it be surprising that canoes vary in price? Not every canoe craftsman is made equal. There’s bound to be more skilled craftsmen who make higher quality canoes. And his is an island secluded from society – they use feathers as currency, after all – so it’s not like they have factories that make every canoe the same! Logically, I would come up with a conclusion that lined up with Clegg’s falsified data. There is room for a way higher gap in quality between the worst and best canoe than between the worse and best baskets of yams, assuming baskets containing rotten yams aren’t considered. Spearman’s conclusion fits the narrative, but I disagree with him, and would have liked some further explanation against my case.
Here’s another reason I was unsatisfied. In chapter four, Oliver Wu was contemplating Dennis Gossen’s research on his way home. As a sociologist focused on criminology, Oliver Wu was weighing the costs and benefits of certain crimes in his head. When he came to the crime of murder, he suddenly had an epiphany: the fatal equilibrium. This happened on page 39 and was never revealed or mentioned for the rest of the book. I am forced to assume that Denton Clegg’s own costs and benefits to murdering Gossen and the two professors show this “fatal equilibrium.” However, I would have preferred if Oliver Wu’s views were expressed, as he isn’t an economist and could’ve offered something new and interesting.
The ending of any story is crucial. It’s one of the reasons everyone now hates the Game of Thrones show and why I will never waste hours upon hours watching it. The Fatal Equilibrium really captured my attention, but because the reasoning that solved the murder didn’t make sense, I can’t rate it highly at all.
June 6, 2020
Easy read. Read in two days without trying.
The libraries are still closed due to the coronavirus quarantine. So, I just re-read a well-worn copy from my personal library of this wonderful economic who-done-it. Such a fun throwback to my college years! This book started my love affair with economics back in college.
Originally published in 1985, this murder mystery follows a collection of Harvard professors on the Promotions & Tenure Committee as well as an eager beaver Assistant Professor up for a promotion. The Assistant Professor is denied his promotion and found dead of apparent suicide. Two members of the P&T committee are then savagely attacked and murdered in their homes. Senior Economist Henry Spearman uses economic principles to understand daily life and unmask the murderer!
Fun and educational with economics principles woven throughout the story. I loved the interplay of the contrasting viewpoints of the various professors based on their chosen academic disciplines. The novel also offered insight into the life of top-tier academics.
The first chapter contains the murder and then the story flashes backward. (The story builds up to the murder, which finally occurs again around pg 114.) The reader has to watch the dates on each chapter carefully or they could be confused by the sequence of events. The killer is revealed at the end of the novel and it ties the story together nicely. The reader does not, however, get a fair chance along the way to guess at the murder's identity in my opinion. Still a fun read though.
The end of the story unexpectedly contains references to sailing to London on the QE2. Fond memories!
The libraries are still closed due to the coronavirus quarantine. So, I just re-read a well-worn copy from my personal library of this wonderful economic who-done-it. Such a fun throwback to my college years! This book started my love affair with economics back in college.
Originally published in 1985, this murder mystery follows a collection of Harvard professors on the Promotions & Tenure Committee as well as an eager beaver Assistant Professor up for a promotion. The Assistant Professor is denied his promotion and found dead of apparent suicide. Two members of the P&T committee are then savagely attacked and murdered in their homes. Senior Economist Henry Spearman uses economic principles to understand daily life and unmask the murderer!
Fun and educational with economics principles woven throughout the story. I loved the interplay of the contrasting viewpoints of the various professors based on their chosen academic disciplines. The novel also offered insight into the life of top-tier academics.
The first chapter contains the murder and then the story flashes backward. (The story builds up to the murder, which finally occurs again around pg 114.) The reader has to watch the dates on each chapter carefully or they could be confused by the sequence of events. The killer is revealed at the end of the novel and it ties the story together nicely. The reader does not, however, get a fair chance along the way to guess at the murder's identity in my opinion. Still a fun read though.
The end of the story unexpectedly contains references to sailing to London on the QE2. Fond memories!
November 10, 2025
經濟學原理並不適合用來偵辦謀殺案
以推理小說的形式來介紹經濟學概念，不知道是不是個好點子？但至少在我看來，作者可能要冒著雙重風險：一、對推理小說而言，推理的水平不足；二、對經濟學而言，經濟學概念又介紹不清楚。之所以會有這個創作的新點子，是因為作者認為：經濟學是「對人類日常生活的研究」。問題是，這類研究對人類日常行為的預測，有幾分準確性呢？如果他的預測準度只與氣象預測相當，那麼這種經濟學推理能成功破案的機率也就很有限了。
故事是說：哈佛大學文理學院的院長克萊格，在他的著作裡杜撰數據，騙取學術名聲。不料這件事被一位正巧要爭取升等的經濟學助教授高森發現了。為防自己的造假事件暴露，這位院長於是開始了一連串的謀殺。首先，他殺了高森，並偽造高森的遺書，說他是因為升等評審沒通過而自殺。其後又殺了可能已被告知真相的兩位教授，並嫁禍給助教授的未婚妻梅麗沙，因為這兩位可能已經知道真相的教授恰好在高森的升等評審會時投了反對票。最後，整件事被另一位經濟學教授史匹曼(主角)揭露。他和被殺的高森一樣，都是憑著經濟學的知識就發現了院長杜撰數據的事實。
故事不奇特，描述也稍嫌沉悶，但最大問題是描寫不夠嚴密，可以輕易看出破綻：第一，警方不大可能會輕易就相信助教授是因為升等沒通過就自殺；第二，根據書中描寫並不足以斷定院長(兇手)知道助教授有未婚妻，而預先想到嫁禍於她；第三，在證據並不充分的情形下，梅麗沙就被判了二級謀殺，未免草率；第四，兇手在殺了可能知道真相的兩個人之後，竟然沒有再去探尋是否還有別人也知道真相；第五，以院長的地位聲望，不先設法以其他方式解決就直接訴諸殺人，實在過於勉強。總之，以推理小說而言，這本書似乎不夠嚴謹。
就經濟學概念的傳遞來說，本書提到的專有名詞有：機會成本、消費者剩餘、邊際效用等。還有若干關於科學研究方法、效用最大化、成本效益等概念的說明，內容似乎多了一點。當然，最大的問題還是：基本經濟學概念真的足以說明人類日常生活的行為嗎？
例如，他以“供需平衡決定價格”的觀念說：「房租受到法律限制無法達到市場均衡價格的時候，房東往往對房客擺出一副晚娘面孔」；汽油供給不足，加上價格管制的時候，加油站服務人員的態度就隨之下降。這個說法可靠嗎？只怕未必。或者說，事情要複雜的多。每個人對是否“平衡”的認知和感受不同，金錢利潤也只是決定態度的一項因素而已。
最莫名其妙的是第136頁的討論，主角說：「我們所發展的理論有多少價值，不是由真實性評估，而是由實用性評估。『實用性』的意思，當然是指理論具有一定的準確度，可以預測結果，或在反覆的實踐中維持為真。確實，經濟學家所提出的理論前提並不切合實際，當丹尼斯‧高森假定，人具有高度理性並且追求最大化效用的時候，並不表示這是他所相信的，真實的人性觀點，他只是採取了必要的手段，才能以實證方法掌握這門學科的研究主題。效用最大化是經濟學中最強有力的一個通則，實用性已經經過一再反覆的證實，你所能要求一個經濟學家的，只有高水準的邏輯推論，以及佐證的實證證據，但無論如何，經濟學理論只會是個通則，忽視了許多真實世界的細節。」
作者既然知道經濟學“只會是個通則，忽視了許多真實世界的細節”，那麼，怎麼能用這種方法來斷案呢？例如，經濟學預測的準度有八成，你能用這種機率來斷案嗎？你是把人命當兒戲嗎。經濟學用來預測市場趨勢之類的東西當然可以，就像氣象局可以依據大氣理論來預報天候狀況，他們只需具“實用性”就好了。問題是牽涉到人命的謀殺案，恐怕，這個“前提不切合實際”的理論就不適合了。
以推理小說的形式來介紹經濟學概念，不知道是不是個好點子？但至少在我看來，作者可能要冒著雙重風險：一、對推理小說而言，推理的水平不足；二、對經濟學而言，經濟學概念又介紹不清楚。之所以會有這個創作的新點子，是因為作者認為：經濟學是「對人類日常生活的研究」。問題是，這類研究對人類日常行為的預測，有幾分準確性呢？如果他的預測準度只與氣象預測相當，那麼這種經濟學推理能成功破案的機率也就很有限了。
故事是說：哈佛大學文理學院的院長克萊格，在他的著作裡杜撰數據，騙取學術名聲。不料這件事被一位正巧要爭取升等的經濟學助教授高森發現了。為防自己的造假事件暴露，這位院長於是開始了一連串的謀殺。首先，他殺了高森，並偽造高森的遺書，說他是因為升等評審沒通過而自殺。其後又殺了可能已被告知真相的兩位教授，並嫁禍給助教授的未婚妻梅麗沙，因為這兩位可能已經知道真相的教授恰好在高森的升等評審會時投了反對票。最後，整件事被另一位經濟學教授史匹曼(主角)揭露。他和被殺的高森一樣，都是憑著經濟學的知識就發現了院長杜撰數據的事實。
故事不奇特，描述也稍嫌沉悶，但最大問題是描寫不夠嚴密，可以輕易看出破綻：第一，警方不大可能會輕易就相信助教授是因為升等沒通過就自殺；第二，根據書中描寫並不足以斷定院長(兇手)知道助教授有未婚妻，而預先想到嫁禍於她；第三，在證據並不充分的情形下，梅麗沙就被判了二級謀殺，未免草率；第四，兇手在殺了可能知道真相的兩個人之後，竟然沒有再去探尋是否還有別人也知道真相；第五，以院長的地位聲望，不先設法以其他方式解決就直接訴諸殺人，實在過於勉強。總之，以推理小說而言，這本書似乎不夠嚴謹。
就經濟學概念的傳遞來說，本書提到的專有名詞有：機會成本、消費者剩餘、邊際效用等。還有若干關於科學研究方法、效用最大化、成本效益等概念的說明，內容似乎多了一點。當然，最大的問題還是：基本經濟學概念真的足以說明人類日常生活的行為嗎？
例如，他以“供需平衡決定價格”的觀念說：「房租受到法律限制無法達到市場均衡價格的時候，房東往往對房客擺出一副晚娘面孔」；汽油供給不足，加上價格管制的時候，加油站服務人員的態度就隨之下降。這個說法可靠嗎？只怕未必。或者說，事情要複雜的多。每個人對是否“平衡”的認知和感受不同，金錢利潤也只是決定態度的一項因素而已。
最莫名其妙的是第136頁的討論，主角說：「我們所發展的理論有多少價值，不是由真實性評估，而是由實用性評估。『實用性』的意思，當然是指理論具有一定的準確度，可以預測結果，或在反覆的實踐中維持為真。確實，經濟學家所提出的理論前提並不切合實際，當丹尼斯‧高森假定，人具有高度理性並且追求最大化效用的時候，並不表示這是他所相信的，真實的人性觀點，他只是採取了必要的手段，才能以實證方法掌握這門學科的研究主題。效用最大化是經濟學中最強有力的一個通則，實用性已經經過一再反覆的證實，你所能要求一個經濟學家的，只有高水準的邏輯推論，以及佐證的實證證據，但無論如何，經濟學理論只會是個通則，忽視了許多真實世界的細節。」
作者既然知道經濟學“只會是個通則，忽視了許多真實世界的細節”，那麼，怎麼能用這種方法來斷案呢？例如，經濟學預測的準度有八成，你能用這種機率來斷案嗎？你是把人命當兒戲嗎。經濟學用來預測市場趨勢之類的東西當然可以，就像氣象局可以依據大氣理論來預報天候狀況，他們只需具“實用性”就好了。問題是牽涉到人命的謀殺案，恐怕，這個“前提不切合實際”的理論就不適合了。
December 5, 2025
The argument raised by professor Spearman (page 104) about Diminishing Marginal Utility (DMU) being the reason why vending machines dispense newspaper copies in a different way from soft drinks is simply wrong!
(If you haven't read it yet, have a look at it and try to spot the flaw.)
Here's why... One doesn't have to get an additional copy of the same newspaper if he or she wants to enjoy reading the same news again, but one cannot drink from the soft drink can he or she just emptied, implying that another can is required to enjoy drinking again. The difference is crystal clear: soft drink is consumable while news is not. I'm not saying that DMU doesn't have a role in the way we market different commodities, it sure has, big one, but not in the way Spearman appealed to it. Because in Spearman's case, even if news have a DMU far slower than soft drinks, no one will still bother to buy another copy, they'll reread the one they already have, rendering the effect of the rate of DMU zero.
I was surprised to find such a big hole in an argument of a character who's supposed to be a professor in economics, and it's not even a pitfall... A little bit more care next time Marshal Jevons!
(If you haven't read it yet, have a look at it and try to spot the flaw.)
Here's why... One doesn't have to get an additional copy of the same newspaper if he or she wants to enjoy reading the same news again, but one cannot drink from the soft drink can he or she just emptied, implying that another can is required to enjoy drinking again. The difference is crystal clear: soft drink is consumable while news is not. I'm not saying that DMU doesn't have a role in the way we market different commodities, it sure has, big one, but not in the way Spearman appealed to it. Because in Spearman's case, even if news have a DMU far slower than soft drinks, no one will still bother to buy another copy, they'll reread the one they already have, rendering the effect of the rate of DMU zero.
I was surprised to find such a big hole in an argument of a character who's supposed to be a professor in economics, and it's not even a pitfall... A little bit more care next time Marshal Jevons!
November 28, 2016
The second entry in this series of cozy mysteries. This mystery is very donnish, as its setting is the intrigue around the promotion of an assistant professor at Harvard. I think the writing style, the characterization, the plotting and the "fair play" are all markedly better than in first entry in the series. Also, the economics are more interesting and also more central to the detection (nice application of search theory rather than intrusive insertion of Econ 101 stuff).
The book chapters are short, making the book easy to read in bite sized pieces (e.g., on the subway).
One critical note is that, as in the previous book, the economics used in the detection of the culprit are insufficiently tight: the theoretical deduction used by Spearman requires that the products have the same level of product differentiation, which they do not in this case. Still, the authors do a very nice job in giving clues to the reader throughout the book.
Another critical note is that the writing style is not great, but it was more than good enough to not detract from my enjoying the story.
Recommended if you like both donnish mysteries and economics.
The book chapters are short, making the book easy to read in bite sized pieces (e.g., on the subway).
One critical note is that, as in the previous book, the economics used in the detection of the culprit are insufficiently tight: the theoretical deduction used by Spearman requires that the products have the same level of product differentiation, which they do not in this case. Still, the authors do a very nice job in giving clues to the reader throughout the book.
Another critical note is that the writing style is not great, but it was more than good enough to not detract from my enjoying the story.
Recommended if you like both donnish mysteries and economics.
August 11, 2021
An interesting mystery, with a side of economics . . . and murder.
I had to read this book for an economics class. I found the book very interesting and informative. The plot and story line were good, and the mini lessons on economics gave me additional insight on the principles and concepts I was learning about in class. I believe I read some reviews on other websites, where reviewers said the plot was predictable or that it was easy to spot who the real killer was. Though I can see where these reviewers were coming from, and while I agree elements of the plot were standard murder mystery paperback fare, I still think this can be an enjoyable read. If you're just looking for a quick mystery, and you're not a fan of violent, gory material, then this would be the book to buy/borrow. I thought it was interesting to see how economics played a role in solving the crimes at hand. If you're an economics teacher, this may be a good book to consider adding to your curriculum, especially for your newbie economics students. I was glad my teacher used this book in our class curriculum, as it helped me better understand what we were being taught in class and in the textbook.
I had to read this book for an economics class. I found the book very interesting and informative. The plot and story line were good, and the mini lessons on economics gave me additional insight on the principles and concepts I was learning about in class. I believe I read some reviews on other websites, where reviewers said the plot was predictable or that it was easy to spot who the real killer was. Though I can see where these reviewers were coming from, and while I agree elements of the plot were standard murder mystery paperback fare, I still think this can be an enjoyable read. If you're just looking for a quick mystery, and you're not a fan of violent, gory material, then this would be the book to buy/borrow. I thought it was interesting to see how economics played a role in solving the crimes at hand. If you're an economics teacher, this may be a good book to consider adding to your curriculum, especially for your newbie economics students. I was glad my teacher used this book in our class curriculum, as it helped me better understand what we were being taught in class and in the textbook.
June 26, 2017
I read the Thai version of this book, which wasn't the best translation. It made the book harder to read, and there were parts that I had to re-read many times to try to understand the translated text.
The book was ok though the economics lesson parts will make you feel like you're reading one of those "Learn ___ with Doraemon" comic, where the anyone other than the main character will be completely clueless about the subject of economics and the main character will be the one doing the lecture.
There were some parts that made me cringe, like how the main character whitesplain to a black guy who was saying that one of the characters was racist. Or how one character mentioned that the justice system favours women more than men when it comes to murder (without mentioning that it's because how society view women as weak & incompetent rather than society just favours women)
The book was ok though the economics lesson parts will make you feel like you're reading one of those "Learn ___ with Doraemon" comic, where the anyone other than the main character will be completely clueless about the subject of economics and the main character will be the one doing the lecture.
There were some parts that made me cringe, like how the main character whitesplain to a black guy who was saying that one of the characters was racist. Or how one character mentioned that the justice system favours women more than men when it comes to murder (without mentioning that it's because how society view women as weak & incompetent rather than society just favours women)
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 28, 2022
ไม่ค่อยประทับใจเล่มแรก เศรษฐศาสตร์ฆาตกรรม (Murder at the Margin) สักเท่าไร เล่มนี้สนุกกว่าเล่มแรกมาก ทั้งการสอดแทรกหลักคิดแบบเศรษฐศาสตร์ และการใช้ทฤษฎีอรรถประโยชน์ส่วนเพิ่มที่พลิกผันมาเป็นจุดกำเนิดของเหตุฆาตกรรม รวมทั้งสอดคล้องกับพฤติกรรมของฆาตกรได้อย่างแยบคาย จึงสนุกด้วยรสทั้งแบบ fiction และ non-fiction ในคราวเดียวกัน เหตุการณ์ตอนนี้เกิดขึ้นในฮาร์วาร์ด มีการฆาตกรรมผู้ช่วยศาสตราจารย์ที่กำลังจะเข้าประเมินเลื่อนฐานะเป็นอาจารย์ประจำและคณาจารย์ผู้มีสิทธิลงคะแนนเสียงในการประเมินดังกล่าว เป็นศึกในรั้วมหาวิทยาลัยดังและแวดวงวิชาการที่ตัวเอกของเรื่องต้องค้นหาความจริง
"ไม่มีวิธีไหนจะเพลิดเพลินและง่ายต่อการซึมซับหลักเศรษฐศาสตร์หนัก ๆ มากไปกว่าการอ่านเรื่องสืบสวนที่น่าทึ่ง ชวนติดตาม และเขียนขึ้นอย่างดีเยี่ยมเรื่องนี้" มิลตัน ฟรีดแมน (เชื่อว่าเป็นต้นแบบของนักสืบเฉพาะกิจในนิยายคือ ศาสตราจารย์สเปียร์แมน)
"ไม่มีวิธีไหนจะเพลิดเพลินและง่ายต่อการซึมซับหลักเศรษฐศาสตร์หนัก ๆ มากไปกว่าการอ่านเรื่องสืบสวนที่น่าทึ่ง ชวนติดตาม และเขียนขึ้นอย่างดีเยี่ยมเรื่องนี้" มิลตัน ฟรีดแมน (เชื่อว่าเป็นต้นแบบของนักสืบเฉพาะกิจในนิยายคือ ศาสตราจารย์สเปียร์แมน)
August 13, 2020
For a novel that I was required to read for an Economics course, this book wasn't too shabby. The ending completely took me by surprise (only because the twist didn't seem plausible). The author, Marshall Jevons, is actually a pseudonym for several economics professors who got together and decided to write a series. Any time a group of economists gets together to write something, you can expect the writing to be . . . dry? But I actually didn't mind the writing style. And I was pleasantly surprised by how the authors incorporated so many economics principles and by how clearly each principle was explained. Definitely aided my understanding of economics, even if the creative writer in me cringed a few times.
May 7, 2020
Fun and quick little read that probably has a very small audience. The cover does the novel a disservice as it looks like a cold economics work, but it is actually more the description of the tenure process at an Ivy League university and all of the egotism, jealousies and petty squabbles it entails. For anyone who has been through the rigors of upper level graduate studies, this book strikes close to home.
The mystery is only so-so and any experienced mystery fan will solve it fairly quickly, but the lessons in economics are simple and enlightening.
The mystery is only so-so and any experienced mystery fan will solve it fairly quickly, but the lessons in economics are simple and enlightening.
September 17, 2018
Aside from its aesthetic dryness, the storyline forcibly yet finely embeds some key economic principles and explains them better than any economics textbook I have come across. If it were not an assigned reading, I wouldn't have picked it up. But, as it happens, I still have to figure out how it could have been written any differently if a behavioral economist was its author.
December 2, 2020
Thoroughly enjoyed- loved the academia vibes
July 6, 2022
Harvard, Econ 201, tenure, murder. It’s a really good beach read nothing more
December 17, 2022
Corny and booty.
Read
August 26, 2023A boring read. Often reads like a primer in economics, which is perhaps its purpose.
April 2, 2025
Worst thing I've read in my entire life
August 16, 2020
實在是很雞肋的一本書……
經濟學的部份是蠻好玩的，但實在是有點多，導致其實有點像是為了寫這些讓經濟學看起來有趣好懂的例子而去串連整本小說，這如果是個經濟學教材我會覺得新奇有趣，但做為小說本身真的是有點無聊……人物本身缺乏吸引力也是重要原因，總之就是相當雞助，只差幾步就到看不下去的程度。大概會放棄後面那兩本吧……
經濟學的部份是蠻好玩的，但實在是有點多，導致其實有點像是為了寫這些讓經濟學看起來有趣好懂的例子而去串連整本小說，這如果是個經濟學教材我會覺得新奇有趣，但做為小說本身真的是有點無聊……人物本身缺乏吸引力也是重要原因，總之就是相當雞助，只差幾步就到看不下去的程度。大概會放棄後面那兩本吧……
June 2, 2024
UChicago economics required reading
May 9, 2015
I didn't read this in a day, but was surprised that when I went to mark it as "read", that I guess I hadn't entered the book at all. However, this wasn't a long book, but a bit slow at times for a mystery. This is because of its unusual nature: it's an economics lesson and murder mystery combined. The authors are both economics professors and must be mystery buffs as well.
A young economics professor at Harvard is up for tenure. His murder is set up to look like suicide when he is denied it; two other professors are murdered in what appears to be revenge against people who voted against him. Sprinkled through the book are the lessons, starting with the economic theory of the young professor, to observations in the course of shopping for rare stamps and paring knives, and even dining on a cruise ship. It really was a fun way to absorb what to me would be rather boring information.
Ironically, the mystery is resolved I THINK in a straightforward manner, but for a moment I thought there was a devilish twist at the end involving a character who had given rise to the title (Wu, on page 39). However, as I re-read that passage as well as the ending, I think that was a missed opportunity. Though Wu achieves his goal, it seems that there is no evidence (other than the passage of his realizing the "fatal equilibrium") that the solution was other than as laid out at the end.
There is certainly room for growth as a mystery author, but still, a fun read.
A young economics professor at Harvard is up for tenure. His murder is set up to look like suicide when he is denied it; two other professors are murdered in what appears to be revenge against people who voted against him. Sprinkled through the book are the lessons, starting with the economic theory of the young professor, to observations in the course of shopping for rare stamps and paring knives, and even dining on a cruise ship. It really was a fun way to absorb what to me would be rather boring information.
Ironically, the mystery is resolved I THINK in a straightforward manner, but for a moment I thought there was a devilish twist at the end involving a character who had given rise to the title (Wu, on page 39). However, as I re-read that passage as well as the ending, I think that was a missed opportunity. Though Wu achieves his goal, it seems that there is no evidence (other than the passage of his realizing the "fatal equilibrium") that the solution was other than as laid out at the end.
There is certainly room for growth as a mystery author, but still, a fun read.
May 14, 2017
A young assistant professor of economics anticipates earning tenure at Harvard and prepares to celebrate the news when he opens the door, not to a fellow celebrant but his murderer. In this interesting murder mystery written by two economists (strange enough), the death of Dennis Gossen is right up front and center and then the story moves back in time to a point where the tenure and promotion committee members prepare to meet and decide on who receives positive results of their decisions. From there the story unfolds and what an interesting look into university life.
For those on the committee come from widely different backgrounds and teaching and yet all hold to the process and what it means. You don't need a degree in business, not have to work on a university, to understand the underlaying backgrounds of each of the members of the committee, who ultimately can all be see as suspects in some aspect of the murder. While I struggled a bit with the economics, murder is murder and what a fascinating tale is told.
For those on the committee come from widely different backgrounds and teaching and yet all hold to the process and what it means. You don't need a degree in business, not have to work on a university, to understand the underlaying backgrounds of each of the members of the committee, who ultimately can all be see as suspects in some aspect of the murder. While I struggled a bit with the economics, murder is murder and what a fascinating tale is told.
July 10, 2008
I read this in my first year of college, in my Econon 101 class. It was one of those instances of a professor assigning his class his own book, although I can't recall if he actually told us he co-wrote it under a pseudonym or if I didn't find out until later.
Mr. Elzinga (oh, the snobbery that has followed me from Mr. Jefferson's University to this day...) co-authored this with William Biert. Both are free market economics professors, and their series of mysteries (three, soon to be four, novels) involve an anti-socialist detective who applies the basic principles of economics to solve murder cases. Cheesy, to be sure, but it's a fun way to review economic concepts and see how economic reasoning can apply to real life situations.
Mr. Elzinga (oh, the snobbery that has followed me from Mr. Jefferson's University to this day...) co-authored this with William Biert. Both are free market economics professors, and their series of mysteries (three, soon to be four, novels) involve an anti-socialist detective who applies the basic principles of economics to solve murder cases. Cheesy, to be sure, but it's a fun way to review economic concepts and see how economic reasoning can apply to real life situations.
June 30, 2013
I am bit disappointed after the reading. One boner is the party in which Clegg met Shannon took precedence over the beginning of formal promotion and tenure committee. At the party, Clegg didn't learn that Froster and Bell were contacted by Gossen until next day when promotion and tenure committee began. I have to ask why Clegg would steal the glove of Shannon's to implicate her into the murders of Froster and Bell before he knew Clegg might leak the information to others.
And Clegg did not have the absolute control over the voting. It is a contingent that it turns out to be a tie and it fell upon him to break the deal. If Gossen was voted to have the tenure, Clegg would be at the end of his rope.
And Clegg did not have the absolute control over the voting. It is a contingent that it turns out to be a tie and it fell upon him to break the deal. If Gossen was voted to have the tenure, Clegg would be at the end of his rope.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews