This is a remarkable book. It reads like a detective novel; but it's subject is actually economics - specifically, how the Soviet Union's centralized economy was designed and why it failed. Each chapter could stand on its own as a terrific short story with great characters and lots of local color. But, as the stories progress, you discover that you're following and understanding a larger, more complicated story.Remember when Khrushchev and Nixon had the famous "kitchen debate" at the Moscow American technology exhibit in 1959 and Khrushchev boasted "In 7 years we will reach the level of America. When we catch up and pass you by, we'll wave to you."? You learn from Spufford that one reason Khrushchev felt confident enough to make the boast is that the Soviet Union had, at just that time, made a huge investment in an entire city devoted to science and mathematics. It was called Akademgorodok (academy town) and was, at its peak, staffed with 65,000 scientists and mathematicians. One of the goals of this establishment was to develop both the mathematics and the computer systems necessary to make the Marxist economic vision a reality. Of course, we know the outcome. That was settled when the Soviet Union collapsed. But, the important thing the book offers for any American who lived through the cold war is not the outcome. It's what we didn't know at the time - the part of history that was happening behind the iron curtain. And once you read it, you'll understand more clearly why China decided to move to a market-based economy. We assume they learned from us. I now think it's likely they learned more from the USSR's failure.There is another lesson I took from this book. The Soviet leaders refused to learn from experience because they couldn't shake loose from the grip of Marxist ideology. Their best scientists and mathematicians were telling them that the only way to avoid economic failure was to allow supply and demand to establish prices. But that was a heresy that couldn't be tolerated. It was too much like capitalism. I look at our politics today and wonder if some of the most vocal advocates of capitalism are now making a similar mistake by refusing to consider ideas that seem too much like socialism.