Occupy Gotham?

By Zach Foster

There have been a few articles and snippets on the Mises Blog about Batman, but most are about the Batman Chronicles issue where German Batman saves Ludwig von Mises's library — this just goes to show that I'm not the only student of Austrian economics who's a recovering comic-book nerd — though there is a short and sweet review of Batman Begins by Joe Salerno and a well-thought, in-depth analysis of The Dark Knight by Jeffrey Tucker. Let this article be the corresponding piece to The Dark Knight Rises.

One of the remarkable things about this Batman series is the way Hollywood — a bastion of tired, often-rehashed, leftist propaganda — has unwittingly allowed an obscenely wealthy capitalist who lives a decadent bourgeois lifestyle (when not fighting crime) to be the hero! It was noted somewhere that Murray Rothbard was a fan of the James Bond films partly because Bond was unrepentantly bourgeois and knew how to live it up in style. I think Rothbard — who has forgotten more about Austro-libertarianism than I could ever hope to learn in my lifetime — would have liked Christian Bale's portrayal of Bruce Wayne, neither afraid to make large investments nor afraid to be seen driving the ladies around in his European sports cars.

Another thing about Bruce Wayne/Batman is that he's a shining example of what can be accomplished by the private sector. None of Wayne's state-of-the-art technology is sponsored by government grants, though there would be little doubt Wayne Enterprises sells to the government. Nonetheless, Wayne's research is fueled by his own profits, not government grants or subsidies, and with the help of his top man, Lucius Fox, he develops the technology that enables him to be an effective one-man army and fight organized crime that borders on terrorism, while responsibly avoiding the corruption of the military-industrial complex.

Jeffrey Tucker was correct to note that the mob's extensive operations and violence (as well as law enforcement often turning a blind eye) are fueled by prohibition — that is, government intervention — much the way Prohibition fueled the gang wars and the rise of organized crime in the 1920s. The utopian idea held by leftists and neoconservatives alike…

(Read more)

Source: Mises.org

Bernanke Slams Audit the Fed

Reports Reuters:

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Wednesday rebutted Republican lawmakers pushing a bill that would give Congress the ability to review monetary policy decisions, saying it could compromise central bank independence.

Bernanke said it would be a “nightmare scenario” if politicians decided to second-guess monetary policy.

“That is very concerning because there’s a lot of evidence that an independent central bank that makes decisions based strictly on economic considerations and not based on political pressure will deliver lower inflation and better economic results in the longer term,” Bernanke told the U.S. House of Representatives’ Financial Services Committee.

The hearing was the likely last chance for retiring Texas Representative Ron Paul, known for proposing the Fed should be abolished, to grill the central bank chairman.

“Trillions and trillions of dollars (are) being printed out of thin air,” said Paul.

The Republican-controlled House is on track to take up Paul’s Fed audit legislation next week. The bill, which has been co-sponsored by more than half of all House members, looks set to clear that chamber…

Paul’s bill would direct the Government Accountability Office, an independent, nonpartisan congressional agency, to conduct a Fed review, and it would remove an exemption monetary policy has enjoyed.

Bernanke said the very notion of a monetary policy audit was misleading.

The funniest part of this story:

“The term ‘audit the Fed’ is deceptive. The public thinks that auditing means checking the books, looking at the financial statements, making sure that you’re not doing special deals, and that kind of thing. All of those things are (already) completely open,” (Bernanke) said.

Completely open? Yeah right!

Source: Paulitical Ticker with Jack Hunter

Notable Audit the Fed Details

Reason’s Brian Doherty outlines some important provision details in Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed bill which passed House committee last week:

This morning, the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee unanimously passed Ron Paul’s latest “Audit the Fed” bill, H.R. 459.

The bill would eliminate certain restrictions that now exist on any audits done on the Federal Reserve from 31 U.S.C. 714, such as:

    Audits of the Board and Federal reserve banks may not include—

    (1) transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or nonprivate international financing organization;

    (2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, and open market operations;

    (3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or

    (4) a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to clauses (1)–(3) of this subsection.

Again, the above are the existing restrictions that H.R. 459, if it eventually passes the full House and then becomes law in unaltered or unamended form, will eliminate from Fed audits.

Source: Paulitical Ticker with Jack Hunter

Rand Thinks Ron’s Audit the Fed Will Pass House

And is hopeful for a Senate vote. Reports Newsmax:

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul tells Newsmax.TV that “the Federal Reserve needs oversight” and expects a full vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on legislation that would grant congressional oversight of the independent central bank.

“We need to have checks and balances,” the first-term Republican told Newsmax. “They are an agency that, basically, has destroyed 96 percent of the value of our currency over the last 100 years or so.

“We need to do something to have congressional oversight over what they do.”

On Wednesday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted unanimously to authorize an investigation of the Fed to make it more accountable to lawmakers.

The measure was sponsored by Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul, a longtime Fed critic — and Rand’s father.

Sen. Paul introduced similar legislation in January 2011.

“I think it will pass the full House,” Rand Paul said of measure’s future prospects. He’s hoping for a vote this summer.

“There are many who don’t want to have a vote because they fear that a vote will pass. … We just have to get a vote.”

In the Senate, Paul said he’s “doing everything I can possibly do to get a vote. But over in the Senate, it’s just like pulling teeth just to get a vote on anything.

“I think there’s some chance I can get a vote in the Senate…”

Source: Paulitical Ticker with Jack Hunter

The Consumption Tax: A Critique

By Murray Rothbard

The Alleged Superiority of the Income Tax

Orthodox neoclassical economics has long maintained that, from the point of view of the taxed themselves, an income tax is "better than" an excise tax on a particular form of consumption, since, in addition to the total revenue extracted, which is assumed to be the same in both cases, the excise tax weights the levy heavily against a particular consumer good. In addition to the total amount levied, therefore, an excise tax skews and distorts spending and resources away from the consumers' preferred consumption patterns. Indifference curves are trotted out with a flourish to lend the scientific patina of geometry to this demonstration.

As in many other cases when economists rush to judge various courses of action as "good," "superior," or "optimal," however, the ceteris paribus assumptions underlying such judgments — in this case, for example, that total revenue remains the same — do not always hold up in real life. Thus, it is certainly possible, for political or other reasons, that one particular form of tax is not likely to result in the same total revenue as another. The nature of a particular tax might lead to less or more revenue than another tax. Suppose, for example, that all present taxes are abolished and that the same total is to be raised from a new capitation, or head, tax, which requires that every inhabitant of the United States pay an equal amount to the support of federal, state, and local government. This would mean that the existing total government revenue of the United States, which we estimate at $1.38 trillion — and here exact figures are not important — would have to be divided between an approximate total of 243 million people. Which would mean that every man, woman, and child in America would be required to pay to government each and every year, $5,680. Somehow, I don't believe that anything like this large a sum could be collectible by the authorities, no matter how many enforcement powers are granted the IRS. A clear example where the ceteris paribus assumption flagrantly breaks down.

But a more important, if less dramatic, example is nearer at hand. Before World War II, Internal Revenue collected the… (Read more)

Source: Mises.org

Will you share this?

We've been talking to you about President Obama's plan to cut through the red tape keeping millions of responsible homeowners from refinancing their mortgages, but we want to make sure your friends get the message, too.

We've put together an graphic that boils the President's proposal down to the five things that everyone should know, and the information is all right here -- you don't even need to visit Whitehouse.gov.

Will you share it online or forward this email to your friends?