Category Archives: crime

A pacifist’s personal protection, a 22 revolver.

3 Replies

Before a pacifist buys a gun, there are two critical questions to ask: One is ‘how would I feel if I killed a criminal?” The other is ‘how would I feel if I missed and killed someone else? In my case, I’d feel awful either way. My thinking, even with the criminal, is that I tried my best to do more good than bad, and part of that is to minimize the chance of killing needlessly. Statistics suggest that gun carrying, in general, does good by deterring violent criminals. To be able to stop a deadly attack, while minimizing the chance of killing– particularly an innocent bystander — I’m inclined to a low power gun that’s easy to conceal and easy to aim well. This leads me to suggest a 22 revolver with a barrel that’s not too long to conceal, nor too short for good aiming, 2.5-4″ seems ideal.

An analysis of what percent of people stop attacking when hit by one bullet of different calibers. The 32 and shotgun are the best, in part because the shooter tends to stop shooting at one shot. With a 9 mm, the shooter keeps on shooting, likely doing more damage than necessary.

At this point I’d like to say that I am not a gun expert. I’ve fired perhaps 15 guns in my life including 5 revolvers. The easiest of these to shoot was a Glock 9mm, heavy, large and powerful, but it think it would be too large to carry or draw in a deadly situation, and the Glock was not cheap. The 22s were all smaller guns, and the 22 cartridges, especially the 22lr, are dirt cheap, costing 8 to10¢ each, or $40-$50 for a box of 500. It’s not the 9mm are super expensive, but they cost 25-30¢ each or $25 to $30 for a box of 100. The price is higher today, over $1 each, because of an ammo shortage, but it’s coming down.

Another advantage of the 22 is that the kill power is lower. A 9mm round will go through the person you are shooting at, and kill the person behind, and can kill on a riccoshet. I like that the 22 won’t do this. I also like that the 22, more effective than almost any other round at stropping a criminal, and getting him to go away. As the chart above shows, there is a 60% stop after the perpetrator is hit once, and that’s my goal — getting him to go away. A shotgun is far more effective as a deterrence, over 80%, but it is much more likely to kill, and much harder to conceal carry. The chart above is from a wonderful analysis of the effect of different calibers used in crimes, read it here. The author, Greg Ellifritz, suggests that the reason the 22 is so effective at stopping a criminal is psychological: criminals stop if shot even once, especially from a civilian, and only civilians use 22s. Larger calibers are better appear to be less effective, though they will be better at stopping a really determined attacker, e.g. someone on PCP. But that’s not the environment I work in, and I suspect it’s not the majority of crime. Overall, one shot from a 9mm does not do a good job stopping an attacker. Another good option is a 32. It was the choice of Theodore Roosevelt and J. Edgar Hoover. It tends to be used by detectives and other professionals, but the bullets are expensive.

I’ve done a meta-analysis of Greg Ellifritz’s death data, and confirm that the 22 is the second least deadly of all bullet types, after the .25. Of 154 people hit with 22 bullets, there 28% fatalities, 43 deaths. The 9mm is more deadly: of those hit with a 9 mm bullet, 44% died, in part because people shooting 9mm tend to shoot more bullets, nearly twice as many as 22 shooters in danger situations.

It takes two hands to cock a semi-automatic, that is to draw the first round into the chamber. Gif from ammuniotndepot.com

Handguns for 9mm rounds tend to be semi-automatic with light triggers and large magazines. Guns for 22 tend to be revolvers with heavier triggers and small loads, 5 to 7 rounds. I suspect that a light trigger leads to more missed shots and misfires, and I notice that many folks with semiautomatics, find they jam in danger situations. In the famous duel between Hamilton and Burr, Hamilton hit the branch above Burr’s head, likely because he’d set his trigger very light. Burr’s trigger was set heavy, and he shot straight. When you are nervous, gun with a light trigger can go off early and miss or kill the wrong person. A lot of the people killed with guns in Detroit, I notice, were killed by mistake, because the shooter missed, or because of a ricochet (I did an analysis of Detroit crime early on in this blog). A ricocheting 22 has very little kill power left.

A single action revolver requires cocking by that can be done with one hand; a double action doesn’t need any cocking. Gif from ammuniotndepot.com

Every semi-automatic I’ve tried required a two handed, “racking” step, see above. Thus, unless you leave a cartridge in the chamber while walking around, you need two free hands and an extra second or two to rack the first bullet before you can shoot. That’s OK on a range, but in a danger situation racking is a problem. Even trained policemen with semi-automatics have been killed by knife-wilding criminals because the criminal didn’t need the extra second or two while the policeman racked the first round.

Racking takes strength and coordination, plus an awareness of legal isuess. If you rack too soon and the situation de-escalates, you could be charged with “brandishing.” In most states it’s illegal to brandish a weapon in a non-deadly situation. You have to wait with your gun in your pocket or holster until you are in mortal danger. With a revolver, you don’t need to rack. Even a single action revolver can be cocked with one hand while the weapon is in your pocket. See the process in the figure above. Double-action revolvers don’t require cocking, and that can be a plus. On the other hand, I figure that the sound of a gun cocking might be useful to signal to a criminal that you are serious without getting you into the problems of brandishing.

De-cocking a single action revolver.

Revolvers have another interesting plus in that it’s easy to un-cock revolver, even using one hand, see gif. With semi-automatic pistols, there rarely a graceful way to remove the bullet from the chamber, certainly not with one hand. In theory, you can shoot from your pocket too; it’s something I’ve seen in the movies, but a semi-automatic will almost certainly jam if you try. If the assailant grabs your arm, or otherwise attacks you, you have every right to fire, but you don’t want a jam, or to hit yourself. Most defensive shootings are from close range.

Speaking of jamming, even experts get jams on a fairly regular basis, and beginners have this problem a lot. They forget to hold the gun tightly enough, or they buy rounds that don’t quite match the gun. Rounds that are too weak or powerful cause problems for semi-automatics. I’ve never seen a revolver jam, and if the round doesn’t fire, you can click again, and another round will appear. With a semi-automatic, clearing a jam is a lot of work: more than I can expect in a danger situation.

I should mention that the folks from ammunition depot, the place I got the gifs, recommends 9mm semi-automatics for personal protection because of the extra “stopping power”. Read their opinion here. I disagree, and here is one last reason: Like many other suppliers, they are out of 9mm cartridges, and have been for months. Perhaps it’s panic buying like with toilet paper, or a manufacturing disruption; 22 lr cartridges are still in stock. Supply problems will likely go away, but it’s another reason to look at the 22.

Robert Buxbaum, December 11, 2020. Some vocabulary words: a bullet is the projectile that comes out the barrel. A round = a cartridge. It’s the thing that you put in the gun before shooting. There are several 22s, all with the same size (diameter) bullet, 0.223″ OD, but with different lengths and power, from short to wmr. Different guns can use different cartridges. Meir Kahane was killed by a 22, as was Bobby Kennedy.

Who are the BLM vandals?

Leave a reply

There have been a dozen attempts to tear down the statue of Andrew Jackson outside the Whitehouse. Most of these appear to have been done by white people, supporters of “Black Lives Matter,” or BLM. BLM vandals were more successful destroying statues of Columbus, Lee, Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, Lincoln, Saint Louis, and Christian Heg, an anti-slavery activist of the 1800s, — he was a white guy. Graves are spray painted BLM, stores have been vandalized and looted, people have been killed, and at least one “cop free autonomous zone” set upin Seattle. No police allowed, no fire fighters allowed. At least one murder. Policing by a BLM warlord. So who are the BLM vandals running these activities, and who are their supporters?

Graves vandalized with Black Lives Matter, and with BLM Floyd. The vandals prepared, bringing spray paint to the cemetery, but there is no sense they were helping black people.

To my observation the BLM activist-vandal is not typically black, nor illiterate, nor disadvantaged; nor do they act in a fit of anger. The tools of destruction, bricks, spray paint, chains torches, and firebombs are brought home, often many miles away. Bricks are left in buckets are key locations for ready use in the demonstration. Many of the activists are white, often women, literate, liberal, socially secure, and self-satisfied. Two lawyers, one a Princeton graduate, were among those throwing firebombs in a Jewish section of Brooklyn, last week. They were acting for social justice in Palestine, they say. Another pair of bomb-throwers were two sisters white, from upstate NY who traveled to Brooklyn to throw a gasoline bomb into a police care with four officers. Her motivation, she says, social injustice — certainly not for the innocent policemen.

There is rarely any connection between the destruction and any positive help to black people nor is there any direct relationship to George Floyd, killed by cruel police. Why behead the statue of Columbus, or burn this statue of an elk? Even the fire-bombing lawyers had trouble explaining the relationship between their bombing of a police car in Brooklyn and the motivating causes, police brutality and ending the zionist presence in Palestine, for these particular two. So why burn a car, topple a statue, or loot a store, or burn an elk? As best I can tell, it’s because these things are big, available, and minimally guarded. If someone steps out to defend their property, the vandals leave, or snuck around to sucker-punch from behind, leaving quickly afterward, before the police get there.

The vandals do not act out of rage either, but with malice and fore-thought. It takes a lot of organization to show up with working fire-bombs, bricks, or with spray paint for that matter. Neither of these items is available at stores near the demonstrations. And taking down a statute requires more. The vandals bring strong ropes, chains, and cutting torches. Check out this video of an attempt on the Andrew Jackson statue, and note the organization of labor and that virtually everyone here is white.

Samantha Shader, traveled to Brooklyn with gasoline bombs and through one into a police car with 4 officers inside. None died. She’s not black, uneducated, or oppressed, Just bored, and angry.

Whether they succeed or not, the vandals are proud of their activities. They brag to the press and often post videos. Publicity is part of the motivation, but it sometimes leads to capture. Samantha Shader, throwing a gasoline bomb, was caught because of her own bragging video.

When caught, the BLM vandal immediately appeals for his or her rights, and is often bailed out by the politicians who claim to deplore violence. They blame the very folks they’d harmed too, and claim it was justice to destroy the statue, or the Jewish or black-owned store. The black store owner is an uncle Tom, the Jewish synagog a symbol of oppression, and they see themselves as white saviors, white knights and revolutionaries, destroying offensive symbols of other folks success. It’s only other people’s stuff that’s offensive to them, by the way. I’ve yet to see any of the BLM vandals destroy their own cars or homes.

As bad as the actual vandals are, in a sense the politicians who support them are worse, spurring them, then sitting judgement on the BLM wrongs. The politicians, liberal, often white women, praise the BLM vandal leaders, and help the raise money for them. They ascend the podium with the worst of the BLM vandal leaders, proclaiming, “We’re with you.” “You are right to be angry, and your cause just.” “We are inspired by you.” They say they are against violence, but they eagerly remove the statues that the BLM vandals spray painted — The statue of Columbus in front of Columbus city hall for example, They defund the police — their salaries, retirements, etc. — and give the money to BLM-run organizations. The Biden campaign does more and provides bail money. All this helps honest black people not at all, nor is it good for the cities, but it does provide good press for the politicians, and so far the support for BLM seems to make up for Biden’s habit of touching and sniffing girls’ hair. As for where the BLM money goes, we have little information, but this is what we know. Some will go back to the Democratic party via a BLM program called #WhatMatters2020. Some will go toward Black Liberation education. None is slated to help victims of BLM vandalism, black or white. And this is what passes for political accountability.

Columbus Ohio; Vandals spray paint the statue of Columbus in front of city hall, then the Mayor cleans the statue, and removes it. Which one is the bigger vandal? Do either help black people?

I imagine that I do more for black lives than what BLM does, by my efforts to provide clean water and better sewage, for example. Another thing we might do, if we thought black lives really mattered would be to change the laws that put black people behind bars for minor crimes, e.g. pot sales. Recreational pot use is legal in much of the US, but black people are emprissoned in large numbers, because the sale is illegal unless you have special licenses. and black people never can get the license to sell legally. I don’t think defunding the police is a road to help black people, certainly not when the money goes to Black Liberation education and statue removal. It seems that black lives don’t matter at all to either the BLM vandals, or the fire-bombers, or to the politicians,, and they never did.

Robert Buxbaum, July 6 2020.

Italian Engineering and the Kennedy assassination.

4 Replies

There are several unbelievable assertions surrounding the Kennedy assassination, leading many to conclude that Oswald could not have killed Kennedy alone. I believe that many of these can be answered once you realize that Oswald used an Italian gun, and not a US gun. Italian engineering differs from our in several respects that derive from the aesthetic traditions of the countries. It’s not that our engineers are better or worse, but our engineers have a different idea of what good engineering is and thus we produce designs that, to an Italian engineer, are big, fat, slow, and ugly. In our eyes Italian designs are light, fast, pretty, low-power, and unreliable. In the movie, Ford vs Ferrari, the American designer, Shelby says that, “If races were beauty contests, the Ferrari would win.” It’s an American, can-do, attitude that rings hollow to an Italian engineer. 

Three outstanding questions regarding the Kennedy assassination include: How did Oswald fire three bullets, reasonably accurately in 5 to 8 seconds. How did he miss the limousine completely on the first, closest shot, then hit Kennedy twice on the next two, after previously missing on a close shot at retired general, Edwin Walker. And how could the second shot have gone through Kennedy’s neck, then through his wrist, and through Connolly twice, emerging nearly pristine. I will try to answer by describing something of the uniquenesses of the gun and bullets, and of Italian engineering, in general. 

Oswald cartridge.

The rifle Oswald used was a Modello 91/38, Carcano (1938 model of a design originally used in 1891) with an extra-long, 20.9″ barrel, bought for only $19.95 including a 4x sight. That’s $12.50 for the gun, the equivalent of $100 in 2020). The gun may have been cheep, but it was a fine Italian weapon: it was small, fast, pretty, manual, and unreliable. The small size allowed Oswald to get the gun into the book depository without arousing suspicion. He claimed his package held curtain rods, and the small, narrow shape of the gun made the claim believable.

The first question, the fast shooting, is answered in part by the fact that loading the 91/38 Carcano rifle takes practice. Three American marksmen who tried to duplicate the shots for the Warren commission didn’t succeed, but they didn’t have the practice with this type of gun that Oswald had. The Carcano rifle used a bolt and clip loading system that had gone out of style in the US before WWI. To put in a new shell, you manually unlock and pull back the bolt. The old casing then flies out, and the spring–clip loads a new shell. You then have to slam the bolt forward and lock it before you can fire again. For someone practiced, loading this way is faster than with a semi-automatic. To someone without practice it is impossibly slow, like driving a stick shift car for the first time. Even with practice, Americans avoid stick shift cars, but Italians prefer them. Some time after the Warren report came out, Howard Donahue, an American with experience on this type of rifle, was able to hit three moving targets at the distance in 4.8 seconds. That’s less than the shortest estimate of the time it took Oswald to hit twice. Penn of Penn and Teller recreates this on TV, and shows here that Kennedy’s head would indeed have moved backward.

Oswald’s magic bullet, shot two.

That Oswald was so accurate is explained, to great extent by the way the sight was mounted and by the unusual bullets. The model 38 Carcano that Oswald bought fired light, hollow, 6.5×52mm cartridges. This is a 6.5 mm diameter bullet, with a 52 mm long casing. The cartridge was adopted by the Italians in 1940, and dropped by 1941. These bullets are uncommonly bullet is unusually long and narrow (6.5 mm = .26 caliber), round-nosed and hollow from the back to nearly the front. In theory a cartridge like this gives for greater alignment with the barrel., and provides a degree of rocket power acceleration after it leaves the muzzle. Bullets like this were developed in the US, then dropped by the late 1800s. The Italians dropped this bullet for a 7.5 mm diameter version in 1941. The 6.5 mm version can go through two or three people without too much damage, and they can behave erratically. The small diameter and fast speed likely explains how Oswald’s second shot went through Kennedy and Connolly twice without dong much. An American bullet would have done a lot more damage.

Because of the light weight and the extra powder, the 6.5 mm hollow bullet travels uncommonly fast, about 700 m/s at the muzzle with some acceleration afterwards, ideally. Extra powder packs into the hollow part by the force of firing, providing, in theory, low recoil, rocket power. Unfortunately these bullets are structurally weak. They can break apart or bend and going off-direction. By comparison the main US rifle of WWII, the M1, was semi-automatic, with bullets that are shorter, heavier, and slower, going about 585 m/s. Some of our bullets had steel cores too to provide a better combination of penetration and “stopping power”. Only Oswald second shot stayed pristine. It could be that his third shot — the one that made Kennedy’s head explode — flattened or bent in flight.

Oswald fragment of third bullet. It’s hollow and seems to have come apart in a way a US bullet would not.

The extra speed of Oswald’s bullets and the alignment of his gun would have given Oswald a great advantage in accuracy. At 100 yards (91 m), test shots with the rifle landed 2 1⁄2 to 5 inches high, within a 3-to-5-inch circle. Good accuracy with a sight that was set to high for close shot accuracy. The funky sight, in my opinion , explains how Oswald managed to miss Walker, but explains how he hit Kennedy accurately especially on the last, longest shot, 81 m to Kennedy’s head

Given the unusually speed of the bullets (I will assume 750 m/s) Oswald’s third shot would have taken 0.108 s to reach the target. If the sight were aligned string and if Kennedy were not moving, the bullet would have been expected to fall 2.24″ low at this range, but given the sight alignment we’d expect him to shoot 3-6″ high on a stationary target, and dead on, on the president in his moving vehicle. Kennedy was moving at 5 m/sand Oswald had a 17° downward shot. The result was a dead on hit to the moving president assuming Oswald didn’t “lead the shot”. The peculiarities of the gun and bullets made Oswald more accurate here than he’d been in the army, while causing him to miss Walker completely at close range.

comparison of the actual, second shot, “magic bullet,” left, with four test-shot bullets. Note that one of the test bullets collapsed, two bent, and one exploded. This is not a reliable bullet design.

We now get to the missed, first shot: How did he miss the car completely firing at the closest range. The answer, might have to do with deformation of the bullets. A hollow base bullet can explode, or got dented and fly off to the side. More prosaically, it could be that he hit a tree branch or a light pole. The Warren commission blamed a tree that was in the way, and there was also a light pole that was never examined. For all we know the bullet is in a branch today, or deflected. US bullets would have a greater chance to barrel on through to at least hit the car. This is an aspect of Italian engineering — when things are light, fast, and flexible, unusual things happen that do not expect to happen with slow, ugly, US products. It’s a price of excellence, Italian style.

Another question appears: Why wasn’t Oswald stopped when the FBI knew he’d threatened Kennedy, and was suspected of shooting at Walker. The simple answer, I think, is that the FBI was slow, and plodding. Beyond this, neither the FBI nor the CIA seem to have worried much about Kennedy’s safety. Even if Kennedy had used the bubble top, Oswald would likely have killed him. Kennedy didn’t care much for the FBI and didn’t trust Texas. Kennedy had a long-running spat with the FBI involving his involvement with organized crime, and perhaps running back to the days when Kennedy’s father was a bootlegger. His relation with the CIA was similar.

The Mateba, Italian semi-automatic revolver, $3000, available only in 357 Magnum and 44 magnum.

I should mention that the engineering styles and attitudes of a country far outlast the particular engineer.We still make big, fat, slow, ugly cars — that are durable and reasonably priced. Germans still overbuild, and Italian cars and guns are as they ever were: beautiful, fast, expensive, and unreliable. The fastest production car is Italian, a Bugatti with a top speed of 245 mph; the fastest rollercoaster is at Ferrari gardens, 149 mph, and in terms of guns, let me suggest you look at the Mateba, left, a $3000 beautiful super fast semi-automatic revolver (really), produced in Italy, and available in 357 magnum and .44 magnum only . It’s a magnificent piece of Italian engineering beautiful, accurate, powerful, and my guess is it’s unreliable as all get out. Our, US pistols typically cost 1/5 to 1/10 as much. A country’s cars, planes, and guns represent the country’s aesthetics. The aesthetics of a county changes only slowly, and I think the world is better off because of it

Robert Buxbaum, February 14, 2020. One of my favorite courses in engineering school, Cooper Union, was in Engineering Aesthetics and design.

If the test of free will is that no one can tell what I will do….

Free will is generally considered a good thing — perhaps a unique gift from the creator to man-kind. Legal philosophers contend that it is free will that makes us liable to legal punishment for our crimes. while piranhas and machines are not. We would never think of jailing a gun or a piranha even it harmed a child.

It’s not totally clear that we have free will, though, nor is it totally clear what free will is. The common test is that no one can tell what I will do. If this is the only requirement, though, it seems a random number generator should be found to have free will. One might want to add some degree of artificial intelligence so that the random numbers are used to make decisions that are rational in some sense, say choosing between tea and coffee, for example, and not tea and covfefe, but this should not be difficult. With that modification, we should find that the random device would make free decisions as boldly or conservatively as any person.

The numbers should be truly random, but even if they are not quite, this should not be a barrier. We generally take statistical things to be random, the speed of the wind tomorrow at 3:00 PM for example even though there is a likely average, and 500 mph is exceedingly unlikely. And, if that isn’t quite random enough, one could use quantum mechanics. One could devise a system that measures the time between the next two radioactive decays to an accuracy many times greater than the likely time between. If the sample has a decay every 100 seconds or so, the second and third digit of this time after the decimal is random to an extent that most would accept, and that one can predict it at all — or so we understand it. (God might be an exception here, but since He is outside of time, prediction becomes an oxymoron). Using these quantum mechanic random numbers, one should be able to make decisions showing as much free will as any person shows, and likely more . Most folks are fairly predictable.

Since God is considered to be outside of time, any mention of his fore-knowledge or pre-determination is an oxymoron. There is no pre or fore if you’re outside of time, as I’d understand things

 I notice that few people would say that a radioactive atom has free will, though, and that many doubt that people have free will. Still no one seems interested in handing major issues to a computer, or holding the machine liable if things turn out poorly. And if one wants to argue that people have no free will, it seems to me that the argument for punishment would get rather weak. Without free will, shy would it be more wrong to kill a person than a piranha, or a plant.

Robert Buxbaum, January 19, 2020. Just some random thoughts on random number generators. I’ve also had thoughts about punishments, and about job choices.

Bitcoin v cash to avoid Trump’s tariffs or ransom a sailor

Leave a reply

The number and cash value of bitcoin transactions has surged in the last two years, and it seems that a lot of the driving motivation is avoidance of Trump’s tariffs. If you want to avoid Trump’s tariffs, claim that the value of the shipment is less than it really is. Pay part via the normal banking system through the bill of lading (and pay tariffs on that) and pay the rest in bitcoin with no record and no taxes paid. The average bitcoin transaction amount has increased to $33,504, and that seems to be the amount of taxable value being dodged on each shipment. As pointed outAs noted in Cryptopolitan, “smugglers attempting to export Chinese goods to the USA illegally have been found to be among the largest purchasers of Bitcoin.” https://www.cryptopolitan.com/is-us-china-trade-war-fueling-bitcoin-price-rally-to-7500/

Average transaction amount for several crypto currencies. The amount has surged for Bitcoin, blue line.

Bitcoin isn’t the only beneficiary, of course, but it is the largest. The chart at right shows the average transaction value of the major cryptocurrencies. The average for most are in the dollar range that you’d expect for someone evading tariffs in containerized shipments. Someone who wants to import $100,000 worth of Chinese printers will arrange to have them shipped with a lower price bill of lading. The rest of the payment, 1/3 say, would be paid by a bitcoin transfer whose escrow is tied to the legally binding bill of lading.

Number of transactions per day for several cryptocurrencies, data available from Bitinfocharts.com

Bitcoin does not stand out from the other cryptocurrencies so much in the amount of its average transaction, but in the number of transactions per day. As shown at left there are 333,050 bitcoin transactions per day at an average value of $33,504 per transaction. Multiplying these numbers together, we see that Bitcoin is used for some $11.2 billion in transactions per day, or $4.1 trillion dollars worth per year. The legitimate part of the US economy is only $58 billion per day, or $21 trillion per year. The amount will certainly rise if further tariffs are put into effect. 

Most other cryptocurrencies have fewer transactions per day, and the few that have similar (or higher) numbers deal in lower amounts. Etherium is used in 2.5 time more transactions, but the average Etherium transaction is only $679. This suggests that the total Etherium business is only $586 million per day. The dollar amounts of Etherium suggests that it is mostly used for drug trafficking, 

Cash-money is the old fashioned way to avoid tariffs, buy drugs, and do other illegal money transfers. This method isn’t going away any time soon. A suitcase of $100 bills gets handed over and the deal is done. Though it gets annoying as the amounts get large, there is a certain convenience at the other end, when you try to spend your ill-gotten gains. Thus, when Obama wanted to ransom the ten sailors that Iran had captured in 2016, he sent paper bills. According to the LA Times, this was three airplane shipments s of all non-US currency: Euros and Swiss Francs mostly. The first payment was $400 million, delivered as soon as Iran agreed to the release. The rest, $1.3 billion, was sent after the prisoners were released. Assuming that the bundles shown below contained only 100 Euro notes, each bundle would have held about $170 million dollars. We’d have had to send ten bundles of this size to redeem ten US sailors. The US ships, the laptops of sensitive information, and the weapons were granted as gifts to the Iranians. Obama claimed that all this was smart as it was cheaper than a war, and it likely is. The British had 15 sailors captured by Iran in 2009 and paid as well. In the late 1700s, John Adams (an awful president) paid 1/4 of the US budget as ransom to North African pirates. He paid in gold.

These are supposedly the pallets of cash used to ransom our sailors. Obama has justified the need to transfer the cash this way, and indeed a ransom is a lot cheaper than a war.

Obama could have ransomed the sailors with Bitcoin as there was hardly enough Bitcoin in existence, and the Iranians would have had a hard time spending it. In general, it is hard to spend Bitcoin on anything legal. Legitimate sellers want proof that they’ve paid. As a result, a buyer generally has to exchange bitcoin for bank checks — and the financial watchdogs are always sniffing at this step. Things are simpler with paper money, but not totally simple when there is no apparent source.

Iranian released this picture of the US sailors captured. Obama ransomed them for $1.7 billion in Euros.

To get a sense of the amount of paper money used this way, consider that there are $1.1 trillion in hundred dollar bills in circulation. This is four times more money’s worth than the value of all Bitcoin in circulation. Based on the wear on our $100 bills, it seems each bill is used on average 30 times per year. This suggest there are $33 trillion dollars in trade that goes on with $100 bills. Not all of this trade is illegal, but I suspect a good fraction is, and this is eight times the trade in Bitcoin. The cost of transferring cash can be high, but it’s easy to make change for a bundle of $100 bills. There is fee charged to convert Bitcoin to cash; it’s often in excess of 1%, and that adds up when you do billion-dollar kidnappings and billion dollar arms buys. In case you are wondering how German uranium enrichment centrifuges got to Iran when there is an export embargo, I’m guessing it was done through an intermediary country via cash or Bitcoin transactions.

It’s worth speculating on whether Bitcoin prices will rise as its use continues to rise. I think it will but don’t expect a fast rise. Over a year ago, I’d predicted that the price of Bitcoin would be about $10,500 each. I’d based that on Fisher’s monetary equation, that relates the value of a currency to the amount spent and the speed of money. As it happens I got the right dollar value because I’d underestimated the amount of Bitcoin purchases and the speed of the money by the same factor of four. For the price of a Bitcoin to rise, it is not enough for it to be used more. There also has to be no parallel rise in the velocity of transactions (turnovers per year). My sense is that both numbers will rise together and thus that the bitcoin price will level out, long term, with lots of volatility following daily changes in use and velocity.

As a political thought, I expect is that Bitcoin traders will mostly support Trump. My expectation here is for the classic alliance of bootleggers and prohibition police during prohibition. The police salaries and bonuses depended on liquor being illegal, and bootleggers knew that their high prices and profits depended on the same thing. I thus expect Bitcoin dealers will support Trump as a way of protecting Bitcoin profits and value. Amazon’s owner, Jeff Bezos is strongly anti-Trump, I suspect, because Amazon profits from no-tariff imports.

Robert Buxbaum,  July 10, 2019. Here are my thoughts about tariffs and free trade, and here is Satochi’s original article proposing Bitcoin and explaining how it would work. As for Iran, they’ve announced a fee for any ship in the Gulf of Hormuz. If you don’t pay, you might get attacked as a Japanese tanker recently was. My guess is payments are made in cash or Bitcoin to avoid embarrassing the payer.

Speed traps penalize the poor

Leave a reply

On a street corner about 1/4 mile from my house, at the intersection of the two busiest of the local streets, in the center-median of the street, is parked a police car. He’s there, about 18 hours a day, looking to give out tickets. The cross-street that this officer watches is where drivers get off the highway. In theory, they should instantly go from 65 mph on the highway to 35 mph now. Very few people do. The officer does not ticket every car, by the way, but seems to target those of poor people from outside the city limits. The only time ai was ticketed, I was driving a broken-down car while mine was in the shop. As best I can tell, he choose cars for revenue, not for safety. It’s a speed trap. It’s appalling. And our city isn’t alone in having one.

Speed traps are an annoyance to rich, local folk who sometimes get ticketed, but they’re a disaster for the poor. Poor people are targeted, and these people don’t have any savings. They don’t have the means to pay a suddenly imposed bill of $150 or more. Meanwhile, the speed-trap officer is incentivized to increase revenue and look for other violations: expired registrations or insurance, seat-belt violations, open alcohol, unpaid tickets. Double and triple fines are handed out, and sometimes the car is impounded. A poor driver is often left without any legal way to get to work, to earn money to pay the fines. Police officers behave this way because they are evaluated based on the revenue they generate, based on the number of tickets they write. It’s a horrible situation, especially for the poor

Speed traps to little and cost much.

An article on the effect of speed traps. It appears they do little good and cause much pain, especially to the poor. Here is a link to the whole article.

The article above looks at the impact of speed traps on poor people. The damage is extreme. The folks targeted are often black, barely holding it together financially. They are generally not in a position to pay $150 for “impeding traffic,” and even less in a position to deal with having their car impounded. How are they supposed to pay the bill? And yet they are told they are lucky to have been given this ticket — impeding traffic, a ticket with no “points.” But they are not lucky. They are victims. Tickets with no points is are money generators, and many poor people realize it. If they were to get a speeding ticket, they would have the opportunity to void the penalty by going to traffic school. With a ticket for impeding traffic, there is no school option. Revenue stays local, mostly in that police precinct. Poor people know it, and they don’t like it. I don’t either. After a while, poor people cease to trust the police, or to even speak to them.

In what world should you pay $150 for impeding traffic, by the way? In what world should the police be taken from their main job protecting the people and turned into a revenue arm for the city? I’d like to see this crazy cycle ended. The first steps, I think, are to end speed traps, and to limit the incentive for giving minor tickets, like impeding traffic. As it is we have too many people in jail and too many harsh penalties. 

Robert Buxbaum, April 10, 2019. I ran for water commissioner in 2016, and may run again in 2020.

Term limits, in what world are they Republican or conservative?

1 Reply

The desire for term limits is one of the political innovations that leaves me baffled. What is the logic, especially for conservatives or Republicans. In theory, Republicans favor any freedom that does not hurt the individual, and in theory conservatives favor things according to the Bible. Both should oppose term limits. No individual is hurt by term limits, and in the Bible, good kings, judges, and advisors should serve for life. Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, splits Israel by ignoring his father’s advisors (1 Kings 12 ff). term limits

In a more-secular context, if you have a good doctor, one who took years to learn the craft, would you get rid of him just because you’re afraid he’ll become comfortable? It’s insane personally, and worse to make a law forcing other people to do it. It suggests a paranoia of public will, the opposite of what a Democratic Republic stands for. These are laws to keep people from voting for the fellow they like! it’s like we believe ourselves to be addicts with a deadly addiction. It’s also like we believe policy is so simple and so corrupting that a beginner is always better than everyone with experience. As it happened, Rehoboam’s young councilors were more money-hungry than the old.

Protect me from making the same mistake thrice.

Protect me from making the same mistake thrice.

Michigan’s term limits are worse than most because ours are uncommonly short: 6 years for the house. 8 for the senate, 8 for governor. While I can accept an eight year  term limit for the governor, in theory he’s just an executor, I can see no basis for the short term limits on those serving in the MI house or senate. If we can’t eliminate these limits, we should at least extend them. Also I would not make the exclusion on any of these individuals life-long. If someone served in the senate say, then left and served as governor, why not let the fellow run again for senate?

For those reading this in future decades, it's funny because XI is president of China for life, something US presidents (Trump) can't be. But they can be put in prison for life.

behind bars  For those reading this in future decades, it’s funny because XI is president of China for life, something US presidents (Trump) can’t be. But they can be put in prison for life.

For the same reason, I’m not a fan of long, mandatory minimum prison sentences. It’s like we don’t trust our judges to be tough enough. If we don’t trust them, don’t elect them, or remove them. As it is, we have more people per-capita behind bars than any other nation on earth. We assume, I guess that we can’t pick a good judge, but have to make sure he or she isn’t a lenient rascal who’ll serve for life. But is that so bad? Is it better to force the judge to spit on everyone?

There are many problems with fair sentencing, but I’m inclined to say that extenuating circumstances are always relevant, and that the shortest sentence sufficient to prevent further crime is usually the best. If judges are rascals, then the way to deal with it is judicial review or un-election. As Cotton Mather said years after overseeing the Salem witch hunts: “It’s better that a hundred witches go free than that we kill a single innocent person”. With judges, as with voters, restricting choice by law seems proper only when the effect is to protect the individual, not when the effect is to increase his burden, or so it seems to me.

Robert E. Buxbaum, October 11, 2018.

School violence and the prepositional subjective

1 Reply

There is a new specialty in the law, both in prosecution and defense: dealing with possible school shooters and other possible purveyors of violence. Making threats of violence has always been a felony — it’s a form of assault. But we’ve recently extended this assault charge to those student who make statements to the effect that they might like to commit violence, a conditional subjunctive statement of assault. This finer net manages to catch, in Michigan alone, about 100 per month. That’s a large number. Mostly they are male high-school age students who shot off their mouth, kids caught for saying “I’ll kill you” often in an argument, or following one. They are arrested for protection of others, but the numbers are so high and the charge so major, 15 – 20 year felonies, it’s possible that the cure is worse than the disease.

Eight students of the 100 charged in the last month in crimes of potential violence.

Putting some faces to the crime. Eight of the 100 charged in Michigan in the last month for potential violence. All or most are boys. 

Several of the cases are described in this recent Free-Press article, along with the picture at right. According to the article, many of those charged, are sentenced to lower crimes than the 15 -20 maximum, things like reckless endangerment. Many, the majority, I hope — they are not mentioned in the article — are let go with a warning. But even there, one wonder if these are the richer, white ones. In any case, it’s clear that many are not let go and have their lives ruined because they might come to commit a crime.

Let’s consider one case in-depth, outcome unknown: A top high school student, skinny, but without many friends, who gets picked on regularly. One day, one of the more popular kids in school calls him out and says, “You look like you’re one of those school shooters.” The loner responds, “If I were a school shooter, you’d be the first I’d shoot.” And that’s enough to ruin the kid’s life. Straight to the principal, and then to the police. The ACLU has not seen to get involved as there are competing rights at play: the right of the loner to have a normal education, and the rights of the other students. One thing that bothers me is that this crime hangs on the conditional subjunctive:  “If I were…., then you would be…”

What makes the threat subjective is that “I’ll kill you” or “I’d shoot you first” is something you’d like to be true at some time in the indefinite future. There is no clear time line or weapon, just a vague desire that the person should be shot. It’s a desire that more-likely than not, is a fleeting hyperbole, and not an actual threat. What makes the threat conditional on the person has yet to decide to show up with a weapon or show any sign of doing violence: “If I were to become a school shooter.”

The person who drew this faces 15 years in prison. The only evidence is this picture.

The person who drew this faces 15 years in prison. The only evidence of a threat is this picture.

It did not used to be that either the conditional or the subjunctive were considered threats. A person was assumed to be blowing off steam if he (or she) said “I’d like to see you dead” or even “I’ll kill you.” And we certainly never bothered folks who prefaced it with, “If I were a …” In theory, we had to extend the law to protect the weak from a shooter, but we’ve also put a weapon in the hands of the schoolyard bully. The school bully can now ruin the life of his fellow by accusing him of being a potential school scooter. We’ve weaponized the conditional subjunctive, and I don’t like it. The boy who drew the picture at right was charged with a 15 year felony for drawing something that, in earlier generations, would be called a fantasy picture.

It bothers me is that the majority of those charged — perhaps all those charged — are boys. Generally these boys are doing things that normal boys have often done. The picture of a shooting is considered a written threat of violence, but to me it looks like a normal boy picture. Girls have not been caught, so far, perhaps because their words and pictures are more “girly” so their threats are not considered threats. Sometimes is seems that it is boy-behaviors themselves are being criminalized, or at minimum diagnosed as ADHD (crazy). There is so much we don’t like about boy-behaviors, and we’ve elevated the female to such an extent, that we may have lost the positive idea of what a male should be. We want boys to be “girly” or at least “trans,” and that’s not normal in the sense that it’s not normative. We’ve come to worry about boyness, creating a cure that may be worse than the harm we are trying to prevent.

Robert Buxbaum, May 7, 2018. I’ve also noted how bizarre US sex laws are, and have written about pirates and transgender grammar.

Bitcoin risks, uses, and bubble

1 Reply

Bitcoin prices over the last 3 years

Bitcoin prices over the last 3 years

As I write this, the price of a single bitcoin is approximately $11,100 yesterday, up some 2000% in the last 6 months. The rise rate suggests it is a financial bubble. Or maybe it’s not: just a very risky investment suited for inclusion in a regularly balanced portfolio. These are two competing views of bitcoin, and there are two ways to distinguish between them. One is on the basis of technical analysis — does this fast rise look like a bubble (Yes!), and the other is to accept that bitcoin has a fundamental value, one I’ll calculate that below. In either case, the price rise is so fast that it is very difficult to conclude that the rise is not majorly driven by speculation: the belief that someone else will pay more later. The history of many bubbles suggests that all bubbles burst sooner or later, and that everyone holding the item loses when it does. The only winners are the brokers and the last investors who get out just before the burst. The speculator thinks that’s going to be him, while the investor uses rebalancing to get some of benefit and fun, without having to know exactly when to get out.

That bitcoin is a bubble may be seen by comparing the price three years ago. At that point it was $380 and dropping. A year later, it was $360 and rising. One can compare the price rise of the past 2-3 years with that for some famous bubbles and see that bitcoin has risen 30 times approximately, an increase that is on a path to beat them all except, perhaps, the tulip bubble of 1622.

A comparison between Bitcoin prices, and those of tulips, 1929 stocks, and other speculative bubbles; multiple of original price vs year from peak.

A comparison between Bitcoin prices, and those of tulips, 1929 stocks, and other speculative bubbles; multiple of original price vs year from peak.

That its price looks like a bubble is not to deny that bitcoin has a fundamental value. Bitcoin is nearly un-counterfeit-able, and its ownership is nearly untraceable. These are interesting properties that make bitcoin valuable mostly for illegal activity. To calculate the fundamental value of a bitcoin, it is only necessary to know the total value of bitcoin business transactions and the “speed of money.” As a first guess, lets say that all the transactions are illegal and add up to the equivalent of the GDP of Michigan, $400 billion/year. The value of a single bitcoin would be this number divided by the number of bitcoin in circulation, 15,000,000 currently, and by the “speed of money,” the number of business transactions per year per coin. I’ll take this to be 3 per year. It turns out there are 5 bitcoin transactions total per year per coin, but 2/5 of that, I’ll assume, are investment transactions. Based on this, a single bitcoin should be worth about $8890, slightly below its current valuation. The gross speed number, 5/year, includes bitcoin transactions that are investments and never traded for goods, and those actively being used in smuggling, drug-deals, etc.

If the bitcoin trade will grow to $600 billion year in a year with no other change, the price rise of a single coin would surpass that of Dutch tulip bulbs except that more coins are bing minted, and that the speed is increasing. If you assume that coin use will reach $1,600 billion/year, the GDP of Texas in the semi-near future, before the Feds jump in, the fundamental value of a coin should grow no higher than $44,000 or so. There are several problems for bitcoin investors who are betting on this. One is that the Feds are unlikely to tolerate so large an unregulated, illegal economy. Another is that bitcoin transactions are not likely to go totally legal. It is very hard (near impossible) to connect a bitcoin to its owner. This is a plus for someone trying to deal in drugs or trying hide profits from the IRS (or his spouse), but a legal merchant will want the protection of courts of law. For this, he or she needs to demonstrate ownership of the item being traded, and that is not available with bitcoin. The lack of a solid, legitimate business need suggests to me that the FBI will likely sweep in sooner or later, and that the value of a coin will never reach $44,000.

Yet another problem for those wishing to invest in bitcoin is the existence of more bitcoins (undiscovered, or un-mined so far) and the existence of other cryptocurrencies with the same general qualities: Litecoin (LTC), Ethereum (ETH), and Zcash (ZEC) as examples. The existence of these coins increases the divisor one should use when calculating the value of a bitcoin. The total number of bitcoins is capped at 21,000,000, that is 6,000,000 coins more than known today. Assuming more use and more acceptance, the speed (turnovers per year) is likely to increase to four or five, similar to that of other currencies. Let’s assume that the bitcoin will control 1 trillion dollars per year of a $1.6 trillion/year illegal market. One can now calculate the maximum long term target price of a bitcoin by dividing $1 trillion/year by the number of bitcoins, 21,000,000, and by the speed of commercial use, 4.5/year. This suggests a maximum fundamental value of $10,582 per coin. This is just about the current price. Let the investment buyer beware.

For an amusing, though not helpful read into the price: here are Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Charlie Munger, and Noam Chomsky discussing Bitcoin.

Robert Buxbaum, December 3, 2017.

Detroit 1967 to 2017: unemployment comes down, murder rate doesn’t.

Leave a reply

Almost 50 years ago today, July 23, 1967 white policemen raided an unlicensed, “blind pig” bar in a black neighborhood, the 12th street of Detroit, and the city responded with four days of rioting, 43 killings (33 black, 10 white), 2509 stores looted, and over 1000 fires. In 2017, at last the city is beginning to show signs of recovery. By 2015 the city’s unemployment had gone down from about 20% to 12%, and  in the first six months 2017, the firs six months of the Trump presidency, 2017 it’s gone down again to 7 1/2%. It’s not that 7 1/2% unemployment is good, but it’s better. Per-hour salaries are hardly up, but I take that as better than having a high average salary at very low employment. As a point of reference, the unemployment rate in Detroit in 1967, before the riots was 3.4%. Within weeks, 150,000 jobs were lost, and anyone who could leave the city, did.

Detroit Unemployment rates are way down, but the city still looks like a mess.

Detroit Unemployment rates are way down, but the city still looks like a mess.

Another issue for Detroit is its uncommonly high murder rate. In the mid-80s, Detroit had the highest murder rate in the US, about 55 murders per 100,000 population per year (0.055%/year). As of February 1, 2017, the murder rate was virtually unchanged: 50 per 100,000 or 0.05%/year, but two cities have higher rates yet. At present rates, you have a 3.5% of dying by homicide if you live in Detroit for 70 years — even higher if you’re male. The rate in the rest of the US is about 1/10th this, 0.005%/year, or 5 per 100,000, with a dramatic difference between rural and urban populations.

Murder rate in 50 cities with Detroit highlighted. From The Economist, February 2017.

Murder rate in 50 cities with Detroit highlighted, from The Economist.

One of the causes of the high murder rate in Detroit, and in the US generally, I suspect, is our stiff, minimum-penalties for crime. As sir Thomas Moose pointed out, when crime is punished severely, there is a tendency to murder. If you’re going to spend the next 20 years behind bars, you might as well try any means you can to escape. Another thought — the one favored by social liberals — is that it’s the presence of guns in the US encourages murder. It may, but it also seems to prevent crime by allowing the victim to defend himself or herself. And the effect on murder is not so clear, if you consider suicide as a form of murder. In countries like Canada with few guns, people kill themselves by hanging or by throwing themselves off high buildings. My hope is that Detroit’s murder rate will drop in 2017 to match its improved economic condition, but have no clear reason to think it will.

Robert Buxbaum, July 20, 2017. Here are some suggestions I’ve made over the years.