Comments (31)

• J D

  A graph of copies of spiderman per ounce of gold from 1963 to present would be interesting.

  Published: June 11, 2007 9:19 AM

• N. Joseph Potts

  The reason the page count of the comics went down from 1971 and then recovered from 1975 is because, on August 15, 1971, the price of a Spider-Man comic book was frozen by then-President Richard Nixon, along with the price of everything else.

  With selling prices fixed, producers everywhere looked for cheaper ways of producing whatever the Wage and Price Control Commission considered a "unit" of their product. Evidently a "unit" of Spider-Man became a comic BOOK, rather than a PAGE. Newspapers became physically smaller (page size) at that time, and everything else was adulterated, diluted, shrunk, clipped, and thinned out, notably cars. Graphs of things like Spider-Man pages per issue show this pattern for all kinds of industries. None of this sort of thing, of course, was captured by GDP per capita figures, so the erosion of the standard of living went unreported.

  Once this foolishness stopped, the product began to assume proportions more in keeping with what consumers wanted.

  Published: June 11, 2007 1:01 PM

• tom

  First of all, $0.12 has the same purchasing power as $0.81 today. The current price of the Spiderman comic book according to the article is $2.99. The author of the article goes on to say that the Federal Reserve is mostly responsible for the price increase in the comic book (this despite the fact that price inflation alone only accounts for $0.81 of the $2.99 price).

  The author cites Mises insight that although the average price may have risen from $0.12 to $0.81 some goods prices may have risen faster than the average and some slower than the average. The author suggests, without any evidence, that the Spiderman comic rose faster than the average rate of inflation because people who received bank loans chose to purchase Spiderman comics before purchasing Time magazine. Spiderman's price went up first and faster than Time magazine prices.

  Why this would be the case year after year is not spelled out. No evidence is presented to back up the claim that Spiderman comics consistently rose faster than inflation, due to being the first receivers of bank credit expansion spending year after year. I find it troubling that the Mises institute would publish "The Amazing Spiderman" article.

  Published: June 11, 2007 1:02 PM

• Brian Hibbs

  A couple of things that I feel missing from your analysis:

  1) the market for "Spider-Man" comics isn't purely limited to "Amazing Spider-Man" alone. There are, since the 70s, several companion titles published each month. In 2007, there are typically 6-8 "Spider-Man" branded titles (plus another 4-6 he appears in without being the "lead" character) published in any given month, and a significant number of "Spider-Man" fans buy them all. I believe this makes looking at "Amazing Spider-Man" in a vacuum a less than precise analysis.

  2) Because of the Direct Market (ie: comic book specialty stores), and the nature of DM purchasing (non-returnable, ordered months in advance), the relationship between "buyers of Spider-Man" and "copies of Spider-Man comics in circulation" aren't really the same number at all.

  3) The "Speculation crash" of the 90s had the impact of putting out of business something greater than half of the DM stores. In many/most communities, a DM store is the ONLY place it is POSSIBLE to buy comics. This is very much unlike TIME magazine, which can be found virtually everywhere in the country, and is well understood by the larger buying market.

  So, putting those last two together, you can say that the peaks of the 90s in terms of raw sales figures are probably not as representative of "number of consumers buying" as you may think; and that the crash shown on the charts doesn't necessarily mean that there was as significant of a decrease in demand as it seems to imply. There's a dissonance in the ability of the DM to meet the exact demand for the title for any number of reasons.

  4) Finally, though you briefly mention it, the impact of storyline, creative teams, content crossovers, better printing and presentation, and creator compensation really CAN NOT be understated -- there's a real and tangible difference in the market between the demand of, say, a Todd McFarlane, or a Howard Mackie, handling "Amazing Spider-Man". These kinds of fluctuations in demand probably have only the most minimal of impact on a general-interest magazine like TIME, but they can have a TREMENDOUS impact in a content-driven media like comics.

  -B

  Brian Hibbs
  Head Cheese, Comix Experience
  305 Divisadero St.
  San Francisco, CA, 94117
  www.comixexperience.com
  

  Published: June 11, 2007 2:10 PM

• Brian Hibbs

  Mm, and the liquid resale value of a typical comic book tends to be well under 10% of cover price. There always are exceptions, of course, but finding someone willing to pay you more than, say, a dime a copy for a lot of those late-90s, early-00s ASMs is going to be a serious chore, and worth more than the cost of your time to do so...

  -B

  Published: June 11, 2007 2:17 PM

• Brent

  >First of all, $0.12 has the same purchasing power as $0.81 today. The current price of the Spiderman comic book according to the article is $2.99.

  You're kidding, right?

  I mean, jeez, just from your statement alone, it is obvious $0.12 from the 1960s does not have the 'same' purchasing power as $0.81 today.

  Published: June 12, 2007 12:57 AM

• flix

  Brent,
  tom is seems to be using some kind of official cpi as the only possible definition of inflation...
  Some ppl cannot even contemplate the idea of govt. statistics not being 100% "true"

  Published: June 12, 2007 6:23 AM

• tom

  Brent,

  No, I am not kidding. That number seem reasonable to me, you disagree. What is the "obvious" answer then and what is your source, smart guy?

  Flix,

  I never said that CPI was the only or even a definition of inflation. The CPI is one definition of price inflation.

  I don't find much Austrian economics at the Mises Institute, but I do find a lot of bad economics and economic charlatans here. There are some excellent resource here, but many articles are written by economic hacks. The exception are those articles written by real PhD economists.

  One expects to find economic hacks, such as flix and Brent in the comments, but one should not find articles written by economic hacks.

  Published: June 12, 2007 8:48 AM

• Kevin B.

  tom,

  The article points out (and you really should have noticed this) that the "expansion of the money supply does not affect all prices equally."

  You cite precisely 575% inflation apparently between 1963 and 2007. Who measured these price changes of every product for you, including even the price of comic books?

  Perhaps if you started paying attention to the articles in their entirety, fewer would appear hackish.

  Published: June 12, 2007 1:29 PM

• tom

  Kevin B.,

  If you had paid attention, you would have noted that I wrote, "some goods prices may have risen faster than the average and some slower than the average." Mises described this process in "The Theory of Money and Credit" to show that money was not neutral (that if you doubled the money supply prices would not simply double) and to show the distributional effects of inflation. This was not part of his discussion on the Austrian Business Cycle theory.

  But I also stated, "No evidence is presented [by the author of the article] to back up the claim that Spiderman comics consistently rose faster than inflation, due to being the first receivers of bank credit expansion spending year after year." Are you prepared to present evidence backing up this claim?

  Those who make wild and outrageous claims and then attribute those claims to the Austrian Business Cycle Theory had better be prepared to back up those claims or be called on it.

  Published: June 12, 2007 2:22 PM

• Kevin B.

  tom: '...I wrote, "some goods prices may have risen faster than the average and some slower than the average."'

  What you actually wrote was "The author cites Mises insight that...some goods prices may have risen faster than the average and some slower than the average." (italics mine)

  Your critical tone led me to mistake the objective of your quote.

  Still, you failed to answer my question: "Who measured these price changes of every product for you, including even the price of comic books?" My doubts as to your opinions begin with your very first assertion.

  "Wild" and "outrageous" claims? Please.

  Published: June 12, 2007 5:28 PM

• nick gray

  On a lighter note, a free railway paper, given to keep commuters placid, has a piece about Kirsten Dunst, both positive and negative. It finishes on the negative side with, "she sings the praises of smoking dope!" Another reason to see all her movies, I would think!
  It's a shame that comics don't confront the issue of being free to smoke whatever you want without the state interfering, or am I wrong? Have MARVEL or DC ever neutrally discussed the issue?

  Published: June 13, 2007 1:01 AM

• tom

  ""Wild" and "outrageous" claims? Please."

  Not wild and outrageous? Then I suppose you are prepared to back up the claim that Spiderman comics consistently rose faster than inflation, due to being the first receivers of bank credit expansion spending year after year.

  When you can present evidence to that then I will retract wild and outrageous. If you or the author cannot then we will all know you are talking out your ass!

  Published: June 13, 2007 7:29 AM

• Kevin B.

  tom,

  Talking out my ass? I wasn't the one who claimed that "First of all, $0.12 has the same purchasing power as $0.81 today."

  "When you can present evidence to that then I will retract wild and outrageous."

  Published: June 13, 2007 1:42 PM

• tom

  "I wasn't the one who claimed that "First of all, $0.12 has the same purchasing power as $0.81 today.""

  Here is my source to that claim: http://www.bls.gov/
  Use the inflation calculator to compute the number. The inflation calculator can be found in the upper left-hand side of the page.

  
  Now it's your turn to back up the claim that Spiderman comics consistently rose faster than inflation, due to being the first receivers of bank credit expansion spending year after year. What is your evidence and your source? If you can't provide empirical evidence I certainly will accept theoretical evidence.
  

  Published: June 13, 2007 1:56 PM

• Charles Hanes

  Beyond the admitted theoretical difficulties in defining and measuring "inflation", is the fact that the government statistics have been increasingly modified in recent years to conceal the true extent of the rise in consumer prices.

  John Williams at shadowstats.com has done us all a great service in providing an alternative set of statistics with these modifications removed. Some information is available at no charge, but downloading the statistics requires a subscription, which I have obtained.

  According to his alternate CPI equivalent series, the CPI-U, which was 30.6 in 1963, should as of April 2007 be 532.1, rather than 206.7. This would make the $0.12 comic book cost $2.09 in current dollars, rather than $0.81. This takes care of much of the discrepancy.

  Published: June 13, 2007 2:25 PM

• tom

  Charles,

  If that was the extent of the author's argument that price inflation is not measured properly I really would not object. But the misuse of Mises theories in particular and Austrian economics in general is what I have an objection to. When the author states, "Why have comic book prices been increasing faster than both Time magazine prices and the CPI? According to the Austrian theory of the business cycle, expansion of the money supply does not affect all prices equally." He goes on to state that the Spiderman comic book prices have been rising faster than the CPI because of it being one of the first receivers of bank credit expansion spending. I find this completely baseless, lacking an empirical or theoretical basis.

  One would think there would be a little editorial review by this website about the claims made in the articles posted especially when dealing with use and misuse of economics.

  Published: June 13, 2007 2:58 PM

• Kevin B.

  tom,

  Thank you for the source, though my point was that your source is most likely wrong, and that hasn't changed. Your accusations of things wild and outrageous are laughable when delivered in tandem with such accurate CPI measurements.

  As for the relatively faster comic book price increases, I don't believe I can spell out the facts any simpler than the author of the article. You may use http://www.federalreserve.gov/ if you are looking for a source of information pertaining to stated increases in the money supply.

  Perhaps those nearer to the source of the new credit purchased comic books directly, or perhaps the relatively new money went to the goods, materials, etc. used to manufacture the comics.

  Do you have a problem with the concept of new credit leading to uneven price increases, or perhaps did you feel that the author's position was that the faster-than-CPI Spiderman comic price increases were absolutely due to them being purchased directly and relatively first? I would disagree with that take on the author's position.

  Published: June 13, 2007 3:20 PM

• tom

  Kevin B.,

  "[D]id you feel that the author's position was that the faster-than-CPI Spiderman comic price increases were absolutely due to them being purchased directly and relatively first? I would disagree with that take on the author's position."

  But Kevin, that is exactly the author's position. I hate to block quote so extensively, but here is the relevant portion of the article:

  "The process starts with central banks like the Federal Reserve creating new money and lending it to commercial banks at rates below what bankers would otherwise lend to each other. These banks then loan this newly created money to their clients. There are many things clients can do with credit. If they all choose to buy real estate, then housing prices will rise."

  "The former real estate owners, now flush with cash, may all choose to spend it on Amazing Spider-Man comics. Spider-Man prices rise. Profits accrue to Marvel managers and shareholders who use their new stores of cash to buy issues of Time magazine. Only now does the price of Time rise. It is in this wavelike manner that newly created credit influences the general price level. Prices rise at different times and rates, and only after some time will the full force of an increase in the money supply be realized."

  "Spider-Man comics may be rising faster than other goods because they have been nearer to the source of this new credit."

  So, spiderman comic book prices have been rising faster than the CPI because of it being one of the first receivers of bank credit expansion spending. Again, I find this completely baseless, lacking an empirical or theoretical basis.

  Next, you give a categorical statement that the CPI is "wrong". Well, there are various ways of measuring price inflation and the CPI is just one of those ways. There is no one way to measure price inflation that can be considered "right". But the author point is not that the CPI is "wrong", if it were I wouldn't object.

  Finally, just looking at the supply of money to determine price increases is wrong. One also has to look at the demand for money. Increasing incomes and population can increase the demand for money. Also, one has to look at the supply and demand for commodities and take that into consideration. So, just looking at the money supply is not enough.

  Oh, and one last thing. Would anyone like to back up the claim that Spiderman comic book prices have been rising faster than the CPI because of it being one of the first receivers of bank credit expansion spending? Anyone?
  

  Published: June 13, 2007 8:25 PM

• Kevin B.

  tom: "that is exactly the author's position."

  Really?

  "The former real estate owners, now flush with cash, may all choose to spend it on Amazing Spider-Man comics." (italics mine)

  The rest merely describes the likely consequences of the given possibility. Not convinced?

  "Spider-Man comics may be rising faster than other goods because they have been nearer to the source of this new credit." (italics again mine)

  This needn't be an issue. Change your mind and then reconsider the article.

  Published: June 14, 2007 11:41 AM

• tom

  Kevin B.,

  "The rest merely describes the likely consequences of the given possibility."

  In fact, it is not a likely consequence of a completely preposterous hypothetical. That's why I have ask you to back up the claim that Spiderman comic book prices have been rising faster than the CPI because of it being one of the first receivers of bank credit expansion spending?

  But you say it is likely. Prove it! It is time for you to put up or shut up!

  Published: June 14, 2007 12:00 PM

• Kevin B.

  tom,

  You're beginning to sound like a broken record.

  "...back up the claim that Spiderman comic book prices have been rising faster than the CPI because of it being one of the first receivers of bank credit expansion spending"

  It wasn't a claim of fact but a note of possibility of an occurance in a long chain of events. (Please don't ask me to spell that out all over again.) The fact claimed is that money supply manipulation has led to a 2400% increase in price. Do you dispute this?

  Published: June 14, 2007 12:45 PM

• tom

  Kevin B.,

  "The fact claimed is that money supply manipulation has led to a 2400% increase in price. Do you dispute this?"

  Of course I dispute this. You distrust the CPI as a measure of inflation and in its place you have substituted the Spiderman comic book! To say that the increase or decrease of any commodity over a long period of time is solely a function of the money supply has no basis in economic theory. You would also need to look at the demand for money, as well as the supply and demand of the commodity itself! To have to explain this to you speaks volumes.

  Published: June 14, 2007 2:36 PM

• Scott D

  KevinB.,

  I'm not sure what tom's problem is, the fact that he hasn't admitted his error here:
  

  this despite the fact that price inflation alone only accounts for $0.81 of the $2.99 price

  seems to indicate to me that he is not interested in learning anything new, such as the fact that the CPI is grossly, horrifically understated.

  Good luck educating him.

  Published: June 14, 2007 4:04 PM

• Kevin B.

  Thank you, Scott.

  tom,

  I'm assuming you have accepted my position on the issue of the early receivers of bank credit in relation to direct comic book purchases as mere possibility. It was a minor issue, though apparently vexing when misunderstood.

  We are left with a new misunderstanding. When you say:

  "You distrust the CPI as a measure of inflation and in its place you have substituted the Spiderman comic book!"

  I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you've made an honest mistake. The 2400% increase in the price of a comic book is only a tiny fraction of the immeasurable effects of inflation.

  tom: "To say that the increase or decrease of any commodity over a long period of time is solely a function of the money supply has no basis in economic theory. You would also need to look at the demand for money, as well as the supply and demand of the commodity itself!"

  This is gone over in the article. Now that you've gotten over your early problems, rereading it should reveal some new opinions that will solve this one as well. I recommend against putting words into others' mouths, especially in effort to merely win an argument...especially in this forum.

  Happy reading.

  Published: June 14, 2007 4:31 PM

• Writeups

  It's interesting the conclusion:
  "For all those disgruntled comic buyers: Keep buying comics. As long as the supply of dollars is controlled by governments, the amount of money in the economy will continue to explode and the value of a dollar in your bank account will erode. Comic books, on the other hand, will keep their value, and may even provide some reading enjoyment. "
  Are we resigning ourselves to accepting that there might be no government intervention in the money supply? The conclusion appears to me a defeatist, pessimistic conclusion, which saddens me.

  Published: June 14, 2007 5:37 PM

• tom

  Kevin B.,

  "I'm assuming you have accepted my position on the issue of the early receivers of bank credit in relation to direct comic book purchases as mere possibility. It was a minor issue, though apparently vexing when misunderstood."

  Actually, it is the crux of the whole issue, not just a minor issue. The author is making the case that the Spiderman comic book price has risen faster than the CPI or Time magazine. How did this happen? The mechanism for rising faster than the CPI is not that the CPI is measure wrong (Scott are you reading this), but that the Spiderman comic book was an early receiver of bank credit expansion spending. This mechanism is left unproven without any theoretical or empirical evidence. I don't expect someone with your demonstrated ignorance to prove this. You have been given ample opportunity to do so, yet you cannot!

  Published: June 15, 2007 7:23 AM

• Kevin B.

  tom,

  Now you are getting on my nerves. Are you intentionally misinterpreting my words for the sake of argument?

  Published: June 15, 2007 1:42 PM

• Scott D

  The mechanism for rising faster than the CPI is not that the CPI is measure wrong (Scott are you reading this), but that the Spiderman comic book was an early receiver of bank credit expansion spending.

  Tom,

  The CPI is wrong in two ways. First off, inflation cannot be calculated. It might be possible to make a decent guess at "average" inflation (an ultimately useless concept, by the way) by looking at the price levels of a large random sampling of goods, but it still wouldn't tell you enough to predict how the price of any single good might rise, or any other collection of goods that aren't in your sample. Also, this neglects to account for the effect of any gains in efficiency that drive down the price.

  The other way that the CPI is wrong is that it isn't even a good measure of average inflation. When a good starts going up in price too quickly, it is removed from the index and replaced with something more "stable" (i.e. a good whose real price is being driven down by gains in efficiency).
  
  Furthermore, I would suggest that you are holding the author to a standard of proof that was never claimed by the author himself and that it is NOT the crux of the argument. You may note toward the end that he makes this statement: "But the idea that comics can be bought both for enjoyment and investment means they attract more speculative capital than Time and other simple consumer goods."

  No proof, right? How about logic and a reasoned hypotheis? I think that the boom in the early 90s illustrates his premise nicely.

  Published: June 15, 2007 5:00 PM

• Scott D

  "or any other collection of goods that aren't in your sample"

  should have read:

  "or know the actual rise in price of any other collection of goods that aren't in your sample"

  Published: June 15, 2007 5:02 PM

• Jim rockford

  The problem is that you don't understand the nature of the product. Spider-Man is like other cult products, Apple Computer circa say, 1990-1998, or Colt Firearms today.

  If you really, really wanted an Apple Computer in the 1990's, even with demand falling, and quality decreasing (versus other computers), Apple realized they could milk the "true faithful" with increasing prices and with a declining market share, it was the way to go.

  More recently, Colt Firearms (the civilian manufacturing arm) has ceased production of all revolvers except their Single Action Army, and all semi-autos except the 1911/1991 series. They have people, emotionally invested Colt Firearms aficionados, who must have a Colt Firearm, and pay ever increasing prices for them. They don't care, they just want a Colt.

  I suspect it's the same with Spider-Man and other Marvel and DC Comics. After the comics boom circa 1989-1993, most readers walked away, as prices increased and substitutes, games and video, were more competitive in price and quality.

  But those who are emotionally invested, the true Comics fans, could and were milked by high prices. They are so invested emotionally in the product that they won't stop buying, say, Fantastic Four. Regardless of the price (up to a point, of course). For the super-fans, the demand is inelastic, and companies in declining sales can and do raise revenue.

  Eventually this leads to a dead end, as existing customers age and die, and no new ones replace them. Cadillac, Apple, and a few others exited that ghetto, but it's fairly hard to do. A company has to stop the strategy of milking the true believers and use them instead to spread their product's virtues. With lower prices and/or improved quality.

  Published: April 18, 2008 2:58 AM