Spiderman Noir and Our Duty

The comic book store where I buy my comics was having a sale on tradebooks. I decided that I would take part of the sale and choice to read a different take on Spiderman: Spiderman Noir.

I have always read Spiderman comic and have rarely read any of the spinoff stories. Right away I was welcomed by many familiar names and characters even though the timeline is very different than the traditional story that I am used to: Norman Osborn, Felicia Hardy, Vulture, Kravin, Chameleon, J.J. Jameson, Aunt May, Uncle Ben, and the reporter, Ben Urich.

Spiderman Noir take place in 1933 during the Great Depression. Even though the time frame is different, the archetypes and general tendencies of the characters that we have come to love, like Peter’s wry humor, are retained. For instance, when Urich takes young Parker to The Black Cat (a speakeasy) and Felicia ask Peter for ID, he quips, “Tell you what, I’ll show you my birth certificate and you show me you liquor license.”

I think what people love about Peter Parker is that he is quick witted and stands up for himself with his words and intelligence. He learned his behavior (apparently) from his Uncle Ben. This story also has Uncle Ben’s death being a pivotal moment in the life of Peter. In this story it is known that Ben was a thorn in the side of the doppelganger Goblin. In1932, Goblin is the street name of Norman Osborne, who runs the underworld of New York. Osborne’s conduct as a crime boss affects many innocent people and Ben stand up to him.

As in the traditional tale, Uncle Ben apotheosis is fundamental part of the creation of the motivation for Parker and Spiderman. During Peter normal thoughts and narrations, he goes over Uncle Ben’s words of wisdom as guidance. In this story Ben’s famous quip is transformed into: “If those in power can’t be trusted, its the responsibility of the people to remove them.” This variation serves the argument of the comic that people need to rise up and defend and protect their freedoms.

One thing that has always fascinated me about comic characters is what motivates them? Why do people do what they do?

In the traditional story arc of Felicia Hardy (Black Cat). She is a righteous wrong-doer. Her father was a cat burglar and she has inherited his skills. She does things that are considered bad, she harms or aligns herself with the “bad guys”, but ultimately the actions lead or are for the greater good. As in Civil War, she was a hero for hire, but was in it for the money, not the duty. Similarly in Noir, she owns and runs a speakeasy, named the Black Cat, which in 1933, is illegal. When Urich is murdered, she knows that she has to hand the documents, reports that Urich has been keeping on the Goblin’s misdeeds, to Parker because Urich knows that he will know how to use them. He knew that Parker’s moral imperative is stronger than his and that Parker’s sense of duty was beyond the reach of money and the illusion of grandeur that a life of villainy creates. So Hardy is the caricature of a person that has ambiguous morals. She does this that are illegal, but her ends are good? All the characters have their rationale and it is interesting to think why? I think people read comics to see how other react to situations and they make the reader wonder what they would do. It allows for the meta-analyses of ones actions and motivations that would never be questioned otherwise. I always think “what would Spiderman do?”

As in the traditional story, The Bugle characterizes Spiderman as a menace and as a vigilante. The Bugle, in 1933, only seems to characterized Spiderman as such because Goblin has put his half-brother Chameleon in charge (under the guise of J.J.J.). This is done because Goblin wants to win the public over by creating a common enemy, Spiderman. This shows how news is manipulated by the ones in charge. Those who have power use the tools that they have to keep their power. We would like to think that that the one thing we can trust is news, but we learn that their perspective is biased. I think this illustrates how biased newspapers operate. We would like to think that the news is unbiased, but that simply is not true. Goblin has J.J. in his pocket, just like current papers tell the tales from their financiers’ perspective.

From this we learn that Aunt May holds the opinions that the Bugle pontificates. When Spiderman rescues May from the clutches of the homicidal and cannibalistic Vulture, instead of gratitude she says that he is an animal like them (because he (seemingly)killed him to save her. She explains that we can’t live in a society were the good guys act like the bad guys. I think Gandhi famously said “an eye for an eye, makes the word blind.” May is always the voice of calm, collected reason. Her conduct motivates Peter and she always teaches Peter a lesson.

I think that comics do a neat thing in that they retell stories that are far off, but parallel the times. The setting of Noir being in during the Great Depression and showing the class divisions is saying something about our current times. The novel didn’t get into the cause of the depression. But, as I have read from Ron Paul, it is due to Congress expanding credit to US and others to grow the economy. Well, in a free market system, the market controls growth and takes care of itself. I think the proper term is “homeostasis”. Well, the actions by the Congress and subsequent over correction by FDR, was not conducive to helping the situation, so the market responded in kind.

The tale ends with the narrator (Spiderman) explain that things are back to normal with Aunt May on her soapbox railing against the monsters and bad guys. He recognizes that there will always be bad guys, but that means that there are always good guys too and “good guys always win.”

So to return to the quote from uncle Ben, “If those in power can’t be trusted, its the responsibility of the people to remove them.”, what can be learned from this tale?

During this economic down turn, we as people need to be responsible citizens, as Jefferson, Locke, Paine, and others envisioned us. The say the ills of having the few controlling and having so much power. Ron Paul has argued that the Fed has welded too much control for too long (1913). When only a few are making decisions, their decisions benefit the few only. We need to be responsible for ourselves and our democracy. Spiderman can show that people with power can be responsible, but he people have to be responsible too.

Aunt May fights in her way and Spiderman fights in his way. Even though they act differently, they are motivated the same way and fight for t

he same cause. I think Aunt May and Spiderman show that opposites can work for a common good. Maybe we need to remain more informed so the ones in power don’t take advantage of the many. Ultimately, the people give the ones in power their power. We need to do our work too. Our founding father knew that divergent ideas are the greatest asset that one can have. Our constitution was created to instill the framework for common good to be created from a collection of ideas. No one person has all the right answers for the direction of a society.

I think we need to revisit the laws that were established, follow those, and be careful how they are interpreted. Jefferson and the others were smarter than anyone around now, so we should listen to what they said. We can get our answers, but we have a duty to do

fulfil the parts of society what makes it a civilization. Ben did it, May does it, Spiderman does it, Felicia does it, and Urich did it too. Each person has a role to play, despite our different opinions and perspectives; we can unite in not letting the powerful take advantage of us. This is our Nation and we need to make sure that it is on the path that we want.

End the Fed Part 1

End the Fed interpretation

So I have followed Ron Paul and the libertarian cause for the last couple years. Paul wrote book called End the Fed, which is a very catchy title, and I decided to spend part of my summer finally reading it.

As I started reading it, I realized that there was a lot of ideas and concepts that I have never heard of before. He mentions lots of economists and professionals. (anyone who knows Ron Paul knows that epitomizes the term “intellectual”). I figured one way to help me through this book was to create a discussion about it with my friends and colleagues. Hopefully these explanations and interpretations make you think and question the deeply held notions of what is considered typical and necessary governmental power.

I think the easiest way to think of this idea is to think ones own finances. You know that when you go to Best Buy to buy a TV, you have to make a decision that is based on many factors. Now, if you had an infinite check book, then your choices would probably be one way versus if your check book had a limit (as in reality). I think that that is his thesis. But, lets explore...

Ron Paul begins the book with describing how we all use money but rarely think about its true nature and function. I think that this is true. Most seem to basically earn and spend (including myself). He also says that taking away the fed would eliminate the governments endless accumulation of debt that will be paid for by future generations and “arrest its massive expansions of the welfare state that has turned us into a nation of dependents”.

In times like these it may sound harsh to speak like this, but his words reminded me of another book that I read, My Grandfather’s Son, by Clarence Thomas. In that book Myers Anderson, Thomas’ grandfather, said that he could get government assistance, but he would then only be under the control of the government and he wanted to be free. He said that he was a man who answer to none if he made his own income, even if it was small. He was able to be proud of what he earned. He explain that if he was reliant on the government, then he wouldn’t be a free man at all.

This made me think of what welfare does to the psyche of people.

Paul argues that the soundness of the dollar is dependent on the infinite copies of the printed dollar to be relinquished from government control. He also describes the hubris of the government to print trillions of dollars and then not have to explain its actions. Here is a quote from Bernanke: “The US government has the technology, called a printing press, that allows it to produce as many US dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost...We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.” (National Economists Club 11-21-2002)

It sounds to me that their solution to having people spend more, is to make things more expensive and have the value of the dollar decrease.

Paul shows a graph of the value the dollar from 1913. Why is 1913 so important? The Federal Reserve System was created in 1913.

This is not the exact graph, but it is one that I found on the internet. It shows how one could get a hamburger for $0.05 back in the day, which now costs $2.00! The hamburger didn’t change, the dollar did.

Paul goes into how a penny used to be made of copper and how he, as a kid, could go to the store and get a bag of candy. Well, copper is too expensive compared to the dollar. See, the resources’ value doesn’t change, we can’t create more copper, only more paper, so the value of the penny decrease relative to the amount of copper. The US’s response was to switch to zinc. Now that may be too expensive, so the penny may either be made of steel or removed from circulation.

The graph really shocked me because I always though things got more expensive with time, but actually the goods and services don’t change value, just the amount of dollars changes. This really made me think about what wealth means. For a person to have more money, what does that mean? I wonder if things will get better and if the ones who make decisions are capable to make those decisions?

You may ask how this came about. Paul recounts a story, in 1909, during Taft’s administration, of who was in charge of creating the central bank infrastructure. There was a secret meeting at the Jekyll Island Club, which was co-owned by JP Morgan. Present at this meeting/ duck hunting expedition was: John D. Rockefeller (senator), Nelson Aldrich, Henry Davison (Morgan senior partner), Paul Warburg (central banking advocate), Frank Vanderbuilt (VP of National City Bank), and A. Piatt Andrew (Taft Treasury secretary). So basically the infrastructure for the Fed was created by 2 Morgans, 2 Rockefellers, 1 central bank advocate, and 1 economist. This is the group that help draft the bill for the Federal Reserve Act.

The way I looked at this was that this group was supposed to generate a monetary system that would benefit everyone in America. I don’t think this particular group of individuals in the early 20th century ever put the benefits of civic duty over their own myopic views. If my history is correct, they were labeled “robber barons” and had monopolized their respective industries. Hardly the idealized notion of a typical American.

The government explains that the fed is a necessary government entity, but in actually was born out of the Progressive era, where many new policies were generated. The complaint from the banks was that they lacked the “elasticity” to generate wealth. Paul explains that the fed was created to basically protect profits and socialize losses.

We know this because bank owners and other large CEOs keep all their profits, but when they fail, they come to the government for assistance. I am not an economist, so that is the way I see it and welcome what actually occurs. I figure that private companies wanted more money to use and a bailout if their risk failed. If a business can only profit ad not have to worry about losses, then that is a great deal!

Paul describe the Fed as having the worst traits of both private and governmental entities.

Paul frequently refers to the Austrian economists. The Austrian Economists are a group of economists that argue for the value of a free market economy and its necessity in the maintenance of a good money policy. One of the main economist of the group, Ludwig von Mises, explained in 1919 that “one can say without exaggeration that inflation is the indispensable means of militarism. Without it, the repercussions of war on welfare become obvious much more quickly and penetratingly; war weariness would set in much earlier.”

Paul goes on to describe how with an endless check book, the congress and government spend and spend without thought and consequence. He likens it to “an irresponsible teenager with an unlimited line of credit. The parents, teachers, pastors, and authorities in his life are virtually powerless to change his habits. Now, imagine that teenager armed to the teeth and immune from the rule of law. This is what we have with a government backed by a central bank.”

I am sure everyone knows what it is like to economize. Usually we have to choose between guns or butter, but with unlimited resources, you can have both.

I am working through the book and feel I should share the thoughts and notions described. This was part 1 and only 4 chapters. I plan on writing more as a I read more. There are many other note worthy parts of this book (that I don’t understand), but I tried to get the main concepts down to share them. I welcome your thoughts and insights.