Ecocomics Week in Review 4/23/10

Part of our job at Ecocomics is to inform readers of the latest ecocomics news stories. With that in mind, we present to you, straight from the editor's desk of THE DAILY BOGGLE, the WEEK IN REVIEW, a summary of the week's most important events.

share on: del.icio.us digg reditt su

The Prisoner's Dilemma

"The Question: Pipeline" in Detective Comics #863 by Greg Rucka and Cully Hamner, DC Comics (2010)

The Question and the Huntress are kidnapped by a sinister organization of international human traffickers. They are each tortured in separate rooms and urged to reveal their plan to the captors. If each holds firm, the criminals learn nothing (though both might still be held and tortured). If one squeals, she might be released. If both squeal, the captors learn everything (and both will likely get killed).

Sound familiar? Good--it's the Prisoner's Dilemma. If they were both behaving rationally, each would obviously squeal on the other for the chance of release. However, the optimal outcome would be if both say nothing.

See here for more superhero applications of it.

share on: del.icio.us digg reditt su

A Somewhat "For Profit" Model: Secret Six

A while ago, I spoke about the questionable actions of Marvel's Mercenary character, Deadpool, in terms of his actual profession. You see, Deadpool is ostensibly a mercenary who performs contract jobs for profit. But recently he's been fighting monkeys and trying to be like Spider-Man (somewhat unsuccessfully I may add) instead of mercenarying. Yes I just coined that word.

So rather than deal with his somewhat problematic life views, I thought I would discuss a mercenary group that actually does mercenary work for profit. Kind of, sometimes, maybe. The Secret Six.

Cover art from Secret Six #1, art by Cliff Chiang

Secret Six is a group composed of several quasi-villains (at the moment: Catman, Deadshot, Bane, Ragdoll, Black Alice, and a Banshee) who accept all those dirty jobs that pop up in the DC universe and do what they need to. Kind of like the A-Team with less morals and more dismemberment. Anywho, the Secret Six started off pretty well by accepting a paying job to protect (quite literally) a "get out of hell free" card which would save an individual from eternal damnation if they held the card in their possession. This worked out fairly well, until they decided to destroy the card because it was too dangerous to be in the possession of the vile individuals who sought it (including the vile individual who was paying them to get it).

Then the Six were hired to protect an experimental prison, until they eventually felt the prison was immoral and decided to free the captives. One of the few jobs I can remember them actually completing was breaking a murderer out of jail, but only so the father of one of the killer's victims could have personal revenge. The Secret Six start out well when the go on a mercenary mission. They try to actually perform mercenary tasks for profit. And they usually almost complete their assignments. But then, at the final moment, one of the Six usually has a pang of conscience and brings whatever evil plan they are being paid to complete crashing down.

And why do I bring this up you may ask? Well, I bring this up because, like Deadpool, the Secret Six are very poor at doing what they are paid to do. Are they vicious? Yes. Are they organized? Somewhat? Are they entertaining? Assuredly. Do they actually complete any job they set out to? Nope. Morals stand in their way. And this makes the Secret Six a compelling read and makes the characters themselves somewhat sympathetic in an anti-hero sort of way. But this also makes the organization of Secret Six a very poor for-profit model.

If I were a character in the DC universe and I was thinking of employing a mercenary team for a dastardly deed, I'm afraid I would need to look elsewhere for help. In fact, I think I would need to file a grievance with the Better Business Bureau regarding Secret Six.

This is of course assuming that there is a Better Business Bureau in the DC Universe. And assuming that said bureau polices the quality of villainous mercenaries. But you get the idea.

share on: del.icio.us digg reditt su

Following Up: Captain America and Unemployment

Captain America #603 by Ed Brubaker and Luke Ross, Marvel Comics (2010)

Two weeks ago, we did a post concerning Bad Cap's views on Keynesian economics. Recall that Bad Cap thinks that infrastructure and military spending during World War II helped to bring new industry to America, provide people with jobs, and eventually all but extinguish the unemployment rate in America. Our discussion mostly focused on the inconsistencies between these beliefs and those that Bad Cap now possesses. We detailed a few arguments on whether fiscal policy during World War II actually helped to put an end to the Great Depression, or whether it was really other factors (monetary policy, for instance).

But let's go back to Bad Cap's actual question. He asks himself why the United States' current conflicts abroad seemingly have no effect on unemployment today, whereas World War II helped drastically reduce unemployment in the 1940s.

Well, first of all, the U.S. was already involved in the Iraq War and Afghanistan before the Great Recession actually hit. The 1920s was a relatively quiet decade for America with respect to international conflicts. Remember Harding, Coolidge and Hoover? Isolationist foreign policy? Post-WWI "Return to normalcy?" When World War II hit, America had significantly increased its spending to prepare our troops for war.

Second, there is the issue of the draft. There are certainly debates regarding the extent of the impact of conscription on unemployment, but there was indeed an impact. American citizens went to war who would have otherwise been unemployed. There is no draft today, so this effect is smaller.

Third, today's warfare is less labor intensive and the same level of military activity requires fewer personnel.

To see this, let's look at the spending. Indeed, the second world war was expensive--economist Joseph Stiglitz estimated the cost to be approximately $5 trillion in 2007 dollars (adjusted for inflation). Current military operations are expensive too. As Stiglitz writes:

The cost of direct US military operations - not even including long-term costs such as taking care of wounded veterans - already exceeds the cost of the 12-year war in Vietnam and is more than double the cost of the Korean War.

And, even in the best case scenario, these costs are projected to be almost ten times the cost of the first Gulf War, almost a third more than the cost of the Vietnam War, and twice that of the First World War.

However, as he put it, WWII saw 16.3 million U.S. troops in a campaign for four years. It required the total mobilization and virtually all of the country's resources fully committed to fighting. Total cost of the war was less than $100,000 per troop in 2007 dollars. The Iraq war, according to his estimates in 2008, have cost around $400,00 per troop.

Where is all of this going? Tough to say. In fact, the defense spending budget in recent years has been pretty confusing. In 2008, for instance, President Bush requested from the Department of Defense $481.4 billion for discretionary military spending, which goes to "ensure a high state of military readiness and ground force strength; to enhance the combat capabilities of the United States Armed Forces; to continue the development of capabilities that will maintain traditional U.S. superiority against potential threats; and to continue the Department’s strong support for service members and their families." However, the actual spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan apparently come through "emergency supplemental requests"--the request being about $193 billion in 2008. And there is more. Nuclear weapons research, intelligence gathering, State Department operations in war zones, and allocations towards the "Global War on Terror" technically do not fall in the DoD budget.

And then, of course, there is Stiglitz's famous three trillion dollar total cost estimate. All this is to say that we are spending a considerable amount of money on defense and military of some sort (if you total all the various sources of expenditures), but we are not seeing the same sort of total mobilization we saw in World War II. As mentioned above, much spending today goes towards development of sophisticated technology, nuclear research, etc. These are sorts of things that aren't likely to reduce unemployment in the same way as it may have during a war of full commitment such as World War II.

I'd be interested (as I'm sure Bad Cap would) if anyone could find a more specific breakdown of current military costs.

share on: del.icio.us digg reditt su

Ecocomics Week In Review 04/02/10

Part of our job at Ecocomics is to inform readers of the latest ecocomics news stories. With that in mind, we present to you, straight from the editor's desk of THE DAILY BOGGLE, the WEEK IN REVIEW, a summary of the week's most important events.

Image created at fodey.com

share on: del.icio.us digg reditt su

Externalities: Wolverine and Women Edition

Superheroes fight crime and save lives. But by doing so they impose certain costs on people not directly involved. These are superhero externalities.

Wolverine: Weapon X #10 by Jason Aaron and C.P. Smith, Marvel Comics (2010)

Ah, the classic superhero externality. Wolverine has chosen a life dedicated to fighting crime and putting himself at danger for the greater good. Unfortunately, this means that every individual who elects to be involved with him on a personal or intimate level is automatically put in danger as well. This is precisely why superheroes wear masks.

You can see here that Wolverine's proposed solution is simply to not get involved. He implicitly values his obligation to fight crime more than his desire for romantic attachments. Mentors and friends have advised--some even ordered--that he always keep an arm's length. The goal is to minimize any externalities on innocent parties not part of the superhero/supervillain game.

Consider the case of smoking. Smoking imposes a cost on society in the form of second-hand smoke risks. As a response, legislation was put into place to prohibit smoking in bars, restaurants, etc. in various cities. This way, smokers are free to smoke their cigarettes, although they pay the cost of having to wait outside in the cold instead of being comfortable in their bar seats.

From Wolverine's point-of-view, he is basically imposing the same sort of legislation on himself. He is forcing himself to stand outside in the cold so as to not poison innocents with his second-hand smoke. Had he not done this, I'm betting Scott Summers, acting as the de facto government, would have ordered it.

But what happens in a situation like in Wolverine: Weapon X #11? In this case, he is not after the girl, but the girl (Melita Garner) is after him. And she won't take no for an answer. What we have here is someone who would rather Wolverine not smoke cigarettes at all (i.e., not fight crime), but would rather be together at all times with him smoking than force him to do it outside.

share on: del.icio.us digg reditt su

Bureaucracy in the Afterlife

The Unwritten #11 by Mike Carey and Peter Gross, Vertigo (2010)

Apparently, they keep pretty tight records even in the afterlife. I mean, look at all the hoops Tommy has to jump through in order to get through the gates. What about when he applies for insurance? Do you think the afterlife has competing plans?

I can't imagine what the DMV must be like.

share on: del.icio.us digg reditt su