Tag Archives: crime

Defending against deadly attacks on Jews.

Leave a reply

There have been many attacks on Jewish schools, homes , and markets. The press likes to blame white supremicists. But in the US, Islamicists and “Black Hebrews” have been the more regular assailants. Along with them are equal opportunity killers — those who kill, for no obvious reason. I note that mostly attackers don’t wear body armor, suggesting that a small revolver is the best choice for defense. The police come, but never in time.

The Monsey, NY, 2019 attack is fairly typical of a small-scale hate crime, though it was not charged as such. A member of the “Black Hebrew” movement who had attacked Jews in the. past, always released by police, waled into a Channuka celebration in a home in Monsey, NY, pulled a large knife, and stabbed the rabbi and four others before being chased out by folks with chairs. One of those stabbed died from the wounds, and several others spent time in hospital. The attacker, undeterred, drove attack another Jewish establishment, a nearby orthodox shul, and attacked there. It seems he’d committed an anti-Jewish stabbing shortly before this murder, but was released as always before the final, deadly attack. As with most black on Jewish attacks, this was not ruled a hate crime by the police.

Kessler before the attack. The claim is that his flag triggered an accidental attack by Professor Alnaji and his compatriot.

In the US Islamic on Jewish attacks tend to be ruled as accidents or legitimate expressions, and never as hate crimes. In Thousand Oaks California, 2023, Paul Kessler 69 was standing with an Israeli flag (right) when two Islamic activists crossed the street to shout at him. One of them, Professor Loay Abdelfattah Alnaji, hit him fatally on the head with a bull horn. The police ruled it accidental, involuntary manslaughter, despite that it was two on one, deliberate, premeditated, and the assailant kept yelling: “stop killing our children,” even after Kessler was down after being hit. Alnaji is free on bail of $50K. It was not ruled a hate crime.

Poway synagog shooter, Shot four, killed one before gun jammed.

The court reacts quite differently to white on Jewish crimes, ruling these hate crimes and punishing to the full extent of the law. An example, in Poway, CA, 2019, a white man, left, entered the Orthodox, Chabad synagog during services carrying a semi-automatic pistol. He shot and killed the first person he met, then shot the rabbi, entered a side room, and shot two more, an adult and an 8 year old. Then his gun jammed. At that point he left, and called 911. He claimed he hated Jews, Moslems, and President Trump. I note that gun jams are common in stressful situations, but police showing up in time is uncommon. A revolver for personal defense would’ve helped, but they are mostly illegal in California — not that the antigun laws deterred the killer.

Organized attacks are more deadly, and almost impossible to defend against. They tend to be Islamic. The recent attack on a music festival in Israel, for example. An air – land assault with machine guns by an armed group civilians (and UN workers!) that left 1500 dead, and 250 captured. Most of the victims were unarmed, but some were armed. They were over-run, and killed. It is very hard to defend against multiple assailants with training and the advantage of surprise.

A smaller-scale versions of these military stile Islamic attacks have play out regularly around the world. For example, Mumbai, 2019, two Islamic activists entered an orthodox Jewish hostel and school, and barricaded themselves in. Over the course of three days, they killed the rabbi and his wife, and five of their children. It was part of a wider program of well-planned attacks on Jews and Jewish businesses in India. The two perpetrators were eventually killed by the police, but the support network escaped justice. These are the folks who planned the attack, and armed the two; IMHO they are as guilty as the murderers.

The shooter who attacked the Hyper Kasher kosher store in Paris. He was trained, but worked alone, and wears no bulletproof vest. First he shot the person nearest to him and those behind the counter — anyone who might reasonably stop him. He then closed the metal grate around the store, started talking and killing for 4 hours. A well timed shot or two could have taken him out.

In Paris, as a similar Islamic general attack on Jews and businesses included the killing of 12 at the humor magazine “Charlie Hebdot” A trained Islamic activist entered a kosher market, “hypercasher” with two Kalashnikov AK47s provided by the same network who armed the Charlie Hebdot killers. Ownership of most guns is illegal in France, but that makes for easy targets. On entering, he immediately killed the person next to him and shot the two people behind the counter (one died). He then asked that the store be sealed by its steel gratings so he could keep on killing in peace. Secure in the market, the attacker then asked if he should kill someone else. When every shouted no, he laughed and killed the person. The killer talked and killed for the next 4 hours while the police gathered outside and watched. One unarmed customer tried to attack him, but was killed in the process, and jeered at besides — jeers seem to be common. Eventually, the French police killed the attacker and rescued those still alive. As with the Indian attack, the support network escaped or were found non-guilty. If someone had a pistol, maybe the killing would have ended quicker.

White supmemicist, right killed 11 in Pittsburgh. Survivor, center picture will testify. From the NY Post.

In Pittsburgh, PA, 2018, a “White supremicist” entered the “tree of life synagogue” with four semi-automatic pistols (three of them Glocks). He killed 11, going from room to room, sometimes talking to people. One survivor hid under the sink for hours, unable to reach his phone in deadly fear that it would ring and expose him. Eventually the killer just left, and as he did, someone with a gun shot after him, missing. Clearly, this fellow had that gun all along but was afraid to draw it, or could not find it. I’m glad he missed, by the way. If he’d hit the guy as he left, the shooter would have gone to jail. According to US law, you can’t shoot a fleeing attacker. My lesson is that you want a gun that’s small enough to hide well and draw easily, and you want to practice enough to be comfortable using it.

Another deadly attack from “Black Hebrews”, this time organized, military stile. In Jersey City, 2019, two “Black Hebrews” attacked the patrons of an orthodox, Kosher market, starting to shoot from the street, from 50 feet away. Once they were sure that no one inside was armed, they entered and killed three individuals who were doing their best to hide. The recent Gaza attacks used this military style, too. They attacked from a distance first to drive folks into hiding, then set the buildings afire or shot cowering individuals point blank. it’s very hard to defend against this sort of attack, especially if you are unarmed, but even if you are armed and trained.

Enhanced photo from the shooting at the Jersey City Kosher market. This is a rare example of military tactics being used. Two attackers of the “Black Hebrews” started shooting from outside the store, and only entered later to finish up.

The majority of other deadly attacks are by “Islamic youths” against older Jews. The youths will enter a house, threaten, kill, and leave. In one case the victim (a professor) was beheaded on the main street. He’d shown cartoons to his class that suggested that Islam is not peaceful. As with beatings that go with “Palestine Independence” rallies, these attacks are not considered “hate crimes,” but teen violence or political expression.

Hate crimes or not, they mostly target Jews, and they seem to be religiously motivated. Typically, it’s only one or two assailants attacking a chosen, visibly orthodox individual or place. Killing is mostly in close quarters over a relatively long period, often jeering the dead. So far, none appear to use a bulletproof vest. The police do not come on time, ever.

From the above, I suggest a stubby revolver for its concealment and reliability. Carrying a gun is not a good idea if you have children in the house, or if you spend a lot of time in schools, even though these are among the locations that need defending most. You need permission to carry in large venues, including big stores, synagogues and churches, as well as most clubs.

J. Edgar Hoover’s 1939, 32 caliber, “Pocket perfect,” Detective.

A gun suggestion is a “detective special” revolver like the S+W 642 “airweight, 14.6 ounces. It’s about half of the weight of a standard Glock, and shoots five bullets of 38 caliber. A step smaller are 32 caliber revolvers as were carried by J. Edgar Hoover. Smaller yet, are 22LR and/or 22WMR, revolvers like the S+W 351C or 351 PD, and all the NAA mini revolvers, 6 to 11 oz. They are easy to carry, non-obvious, and more reliable than a semi. Five to seven bullets can be enough. Robert Kennedy was killed with a 22lr. Semi-automatic pistols are good for the range, but they need to be racked, and tend to jam in tense situations.

I suggest a revolver that takes different loads. You can practice with cheaper ammo, and carry it loaded with more expensive. Especially with semis, make sure you can draw fast and shoot accurately without jamming.

Robert Buxbaum, March 10, 2024. A common claim in the press is that guns should be banned as in Europe, or highly regulated as in New York, New Jersey and California. I disagree. Europe has a very high rate of violent crime, including quite a few deadly attacks on jews.

Our Jail Minimums are Huge, or non-existent

Leave a reply

The United States has more people in prison, per-capita, than any other developed nation, see graph below. Our rate is double Russia’s, and barely below Cuba’s. About 38% of our prisoners are black. That’s a sign of cultural differences or systemic racism; perhaps both.

A major reason for our high prison rate is our huge minimum sentences. In Michigan, as most states, if you possess a firearm when committing a felony or an attempted felony, two years minimum are added to your sentence. The judge’s only allowed input is to add time, or to drop the felony charge. By law, two years minimum have to be added before (not during) the sentence for the underlying felony. It increases to 5 years minimum if you have a prior conviction, and 10 years if you have two or more prior convictions – on top of whatever the Judge decides for the crime. Typically, for a repeat offender, the judge will sentence zero for the felony, because 10 years is enough. Or he will drop the felony charge. The standard penalty, is either the huge minimum, or zero. About 25% of those in Michigan prison, are serving this minimum. Many others who should have gotten a month, or a year, were let go with nothing to avoid giving the minimum -crazy.

Countries with the highest prison population per 100,000 as of January 2023 (from statistica). No country in Europe makes this chart, Russia included.

These laws are specific to guns. No other deadly weapon is treated this way. A knife assailant serves the sentence for the assault only with adding 2 to 10 years minimum. We could go a long way to reduce the prison population if this add-on were moved or severely shortened. I’d like it shortened to 3 months, and broadened to all deadly weapons.

Minimums serve a purpose, I think, preventing violent felons from going free with a good sob-story. But our minimums too long to prevent crime and now only prevent rehabilitation. After ten years in prison, released felons have no life to return to, and no family. The only life they have is crime. It’s been speculated that our huge minimums make felons more violent. Saint Thomas Moore theorized this in the 1500s: A criminal facing a long prison sentence might as well kill the witnesses and hope to escape.

The Michigan State shooter,who killed 3 last week was a felon whose charge was dropped to avoid sending a mentally unstable black man to prison for 2 years. Anthony McRae, had a history as “a hell-raiser,” and was known to be mentally unstable. He had been shooting his gun outdoors near his home, and upon arrest was in possession of a concealed, loaded gun with no permit. These could be changed as firearm felonies, punished by 2 years minimum, or the Judge could drop the case, leaving McRae with his gun. The judge dropped the case, and returned the gun. McRae went on to kill with it. If the minimum were lower, 3 months say, I believe the judge would have convicted Mr McRae’s to that minimum, and taken his gun.

As it was, the judge was faced with the choice of ordering 2 years or nothing.

Our drug sentencing minimums are too high too, especially for “bad drugs.” These carry a 5 to 10 year minimum sentence with no chance for parole. But “dad drugs” are often the ones black people take: LSD, Crack, Heroin, and Methamphetamine. The drugs white politicians take are treated leniently, e.g. mayor Ford of Toronto, or Hunter Biden. I think we’d do everyone a favor by reducing drug minimums, even for bad drugs; for this, too, 2-3 month minimums should do with the judge having discretion to add.

There should be a maximum sentence too, I think, to stop hanging judges. And there should be rehabilitation, but it’s not clear we can manage that. The unions have opposed work-rehabilitation, calling it slave labor. Leader Dogs for the Blind allow prisoners to train guide dogs; it does wonderfully, but something bigger is needed. Lacking good rehabilitation, the smallest sentence that serves as a deterrent is what we should aim for.

Robert Buxbaum February 22, 2023. The original design of Sing-sing included work-rehabilitation in many crafts. The unions complained, and rehabilitation was stopped. Sentencing is a tough balancing act.

The main building block of Alzheimer’s research was faked. Now, what.

4 Replies

Much of health research is a search for simple, bio-molecular causes for our medical problems. These can result in pill-solutions. Diseases tend to be more complex, but Alzheimers seemed to work that way, until this summer when it turned out that the data supporting the simple theory was faked. Alzheimer’s is a devastating cognitive disease that is accompanied by a degenerating brain, with sticky, beta-amyloid plaques and tangles. About 16 years ago, this report, published in Nature seemed to show that a beta-amyloid, Aβ*56, caused the plaques and caused cognitive decline independent of any other Alzheimers indicators. 

The visual difference between an Alzheimer brain and a normal brain is that the former has shrunk. Maybe fat is relevant, fat body leads to a fat brain, and less AZ, maybe?

We were on the way to a cure, or so it seemed. Several studies by this group backed the initial results, and much of Alzheimer’s research was directed into an effort to fill in the story, and find ways to reduce the amount and bonding of this amyloid and others like it. Several other groups claimed they could not find the amyloid at all, or show that amyloids caused the symptoms described. But most negative results went unpublished. The theory was so satisfying, and the evidence from a few so strong, that the NIH poured billions into this approach, over $1B in this year alone. The FDA approved aducanumab, a drug from Biogen, on the assumption that it should work, even though it showed little to no benefit, and had some deadly side effects. Other firms followed, asking for approval of related anti-amyloid drugs that should work.

When news of the fraud came out, detected by Matthew Scragg and a few lone curmudgeons, stock prices plummeted in the drug companies. It now appears that the original work was made up, presented to journals and to the NIH using photoshopped images. For the group that did the fake work, it may mean jail time, for most other groups, the claim is that their work is still relevant. Doctors still prescribe the medications as they have nothing better to offer (Aducanumab therapy costs $50,000 per year). Maybe it’s time to start looking at alternative approaches and theories, sidelined over the last 16 years.

Some alternative theories posit that another molecule is responsible, particularly tau, associated with the tangles. Another sidelined theory is that amyloids are good. For example, that it’s the loss of soluble amyloids that causes Alzheimer’s. Alternately, that inflammation is the root cause, and that the amyloid plaques and tangles are a response to the inflammation, a bandage, perhaps. These theories could explain why the anti-amyloid drugs so often resulted in patient death.

It could be that high bmi protects from dementia. Either that or the diseases that cause weight loss cause dementia. It’s debated here.

It’s also possible that the inability of nerve cells to dispose of waste is the cause of AZ. In heathy people, waste is removed through acidic enzymes within lysosomes. Patients with decreased acid activity have a buildup of waste that includes amyloids. Perhaps the cure is to restore the acid enzymes.

My favorite theory is based on statistical data that shows that fat people are less likely to develop Alzheimers. This might lead to a junk-food cure. The fitness industry is very much against this theory–It’s debated here. They tend to support the inflammation model, claiming that diseases cause Alzheimer’s and cause patients to loose weight first. Could be. I note that Henry Kissinger is the only active politician of my era, the early 70s, still alive and writing intelligently.

Robert Buxbaum, November 17-19, 2022. I hope that Matthew Schragg comes out OK, by the way. Ben Franklin pointed out, that “No good deed goes unpunished.”

A high minimum wage killed Detroit, perhaps Seattle and NYC too.

Leave a reply

In July, eitght years ago, Detroit filed for bankruptcy protection. The US was well into an economic expansion, but the expansion had largely bypassed Detroit. The Detroit area unemployment rate was 9.7%, and the Detroit city rate was 17%, among the highest in the nation. Tax income was not sufficient to pay retirement or current employees. The city was riven by corruption and crime, and attendance in school was dismal, less that 25% in some districts, about 55% as an overall average. Kids no longer saw a value in education. After bankruptcy, things started to improve dramatically.

Detroit area unemployment rate, 2005 to 2021.

The largest cause of the problem, and of the solution, in my opinion, was a high Detroit minimum wage that applied before bankruptcy and that was voided by bankruptcy. It was called a “living wage”. In 2013 it was $16/ hour and applied to any business that dealt with the city and did not offer health insurance (see more on the specifics here).The stated purpose was to insure that all workers could support a family of four in some middle-class standard, by one wage-earner working 40 hours per week. It was a view of Detroit family life and economic need that didn’t match Detroit reality. In practice most of Detroit were not 4 person, one wage-earner households. It meant that most Detroiters could not find jobs, since most companies worked in some way with the city. The only workers who could find jobs were those with special skills or political connections. The alternative was criminal business including drug sales, prostitution and burglary. The unemployment rate was 70% among Detroit’s teenagers.

The high minimum wage bought loyalty for Detroit’s political bosses; they gave out jobs for kickbacks, and some went to jail, including the mayor. Most Detroiters could not find jobs, though, and this especially hurt those looking for their first job: the job that would demonstrate that math and spelling were important; that you had to show up on time, dressed clean, and that you were not to insult the customers. High unemployment meant low tax revenue, made worse by high city employment costs for basic services: janitors, secretaries, and mail room personnel. The city was a mess.

When Detroit went bankrupt, among the first changes was to eliminate the $!6/hour living wage for employees and others doing business with the city. This helped bring the city budget into balance, and it brought in residents, businesses, and developers. By January 2020 Detroit’s unemployment rate had fallen to 6%, and Detroit metro unemployment had fallen to 4.2%, the lowest rates on record. Employment gives a motivation to stay in Detroit and to stay in school: there are jobs to be had for those who could add and spell. I covered these improvements here.

Seattle are unemployment rate 2015 to 2021. Seattle’s unemployment rate is now higher than Detroit’s.

Meanwhile, Seattle voted to raise their minimum wage to $15, with the change law taking effect in stages. The law fully came into effect three months ago, in January, 2021. New York voted for similar changes more recently. It is hard to be sure of the effect of the high minimum wage but already it seems to have hit employment. By the latest data, Seattle’s unemployment rate has risen to 6.9%. That’s higher than in Detroit, a real reversal. While unemployment in New York City has yet to rise much, they have seen a drop in rent rates while Detroit has seen a rise. New York’s are also moving to be more out of balance, something that leads to corruption and bankruptcy. We’ll see how this works out.

Robert Buxbaum, March 25, 2021. Among my first blog posts were complaints about Detroit’s high “living wage”, see here for example. As Puerto Rico slid into bankruptcy, I complained about the same thing.

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.

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.

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.

Elvis Presley and the opioid epidemic

2 Replies

For those who suspect that the medical profession may bear some responsibility for the opioid epidemic, I present a prescription written for Elvis Presley, August 1977. Like many middle age folks, he suffered from back pain and stress. And like most folks, he trusted the medical professionals to “do no harm” prescribing nothing with serious side effects. Clearly he was wrong.

Elis prescription, August 1977. Opioid city.

Elis prescription, August 1977. Opioid city.

The above prescription is a disaster, but you may think this is just an aberration. A crank doctor who hooked (literally) a celebrity patient, but not as aberrant as one might think. I worked for a pharmacist in the 1970s, and the vast majority of prescriptions we saw were for these sort of mood altering drugs. The pharmacist I worked for refused to service many of these customers, and even phoned the doctor to yell at him for one particular egregious case: a shivering skinny kid with a prescription for diet pills, but my employer was the aberration. All those prescriptions would be filled by someone, and a great number of people walked about in a haze because of it.

The popular Stones song, Mother’s Little Helper, would not have been so popular if it were not true to life. One might ask why it was true to life, as doctors might have prescribed less addicting drugs. I believe the reason is that doctors listened to advertising then, and now. They might have suggested marijuana for pain or depression — there was good evidence it worked — but there were no colorful brochures with smiling actors. The only positive advertising was for opioids, speed, and Valium and that was what was prescribed then and still today.

One of the most common drugs prescribed to kids these days is speed, marketed as “Ritalin.” It prevents daydreaming and motor-mouth behaviors; see my essay is ADHD a real disease?. I’m not saying that ADD kids aren’t annoying, or that folks don’t have back ached, but the current drugs are worse than marijuana as best I can tell. It would be nice to get non-high-inducing pot extract sold in pharmacies, in my opinion, and not in specialty stores (I trust pharmacists). AS things now stand the users have medical prescription cards, but the black sellers end up in jail..

Robert Buxbaum, January 25, 2018. Please excuse the rant. I ran for sewer commissioner, 2016, And as a side issue, I’d like to reduce the harsh “minimum” penalties for crimes of possession with intent to sell, while opening up sale to normal, druggist channels.

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.

if everyone agrees, something is wrong

Leave a reply

I thought I’d try to semi-derive, and explain a remarkable mathematical paper that was published last month in The Proceedings of the Royal Society A (see full paper here). The paper demonstrates that too much agreement about a thing is counter-indicative of the thing being true. Unless an observation is blindingly obvious, near 100% agreement suggests there is a hidden flaw or conspiracy, perhaps unknown to the observers. This paper has broad application, but I thought the presentation was too confusing for most people to make use of, even those with a background in mathematics, science, or engineering. And the popular versions press versions didn’t even try to be useful. So here’s my shot:

Figure 2 from the original paper. For a method that is 80% accurate, you get your maximum reliability at the third to fifth witness. Beyond that, more agreement suggest a flaw in the people or procedure.

Figure 2 from the original paper. For a method that is 80% accurate, you get your maximum reliability at 3-5 witnesses. More agreement suggests a flaw in the people or procedure.

I will discuss only on specific application, the second one mentioned in the paper, crime (read the paper for others). Lets say there’s been a crime with several witnesses. The police line up a half-dozen, equal (?) suspects, and show them to the first witness. Lets say the first witness points to one of the suspects, the police will not arrest on this because they know that people correctly identify suspects only about 40% of the time, and incorrectly identify perhaps 10% (the say they don’t know or can’t remember the remaining 50% of time). The original paper includes the actual factions here; they’re similar. Since the witness pointed to someone, you already know he/she isn’t among the 50% who don’t know. But you don’t know if this witness is among the 40% who identify right or the 10% who identify wrong. Our confidence that this is the criminal is thus .4/(.4 +.1) = .8, or 80%.

Now you bring in the second witness. If this person identifies the same suspect, your confidence increases; to roughly (.4)2/(.42+.12) = .941,  or 94.1%. This is enough to make an arrest, but let’s say you have ten more witnesses, and all identify this same person. You might first think that this must be the guy with a confidence of (.4)10/(.410+.110) = 99.99999%, but then you wonder how unlikely it is to find ten people who identify correctly when, as we mentioned, each person has only a 40% chance. The chance of all ten witnesses identifying a suspect right is small: (.4)10 = .000104 or 0.01%. This fraction is smaller than the likelihood of having a crooked cop or a screw up the line-up (only one suspect had the right jacket, say). If crooked cops and systemic errors show up 1% of the time, and point to the correct fellow only 15% of these, we find that the chance of being right if ten out of ten agree is (0.0015 +(.4)10)/( .01+ .410+.110) = .16%. Total agreement on guilt suggests the fellow is innocent!

The graph above, the second in the paper, presents a generalization of the math I just presented: n identical tests of 80% accuracy and three different likelihoods of systemic failure. If this systemic failure rate is 1% and the chance of the error pointing right or wrong is 50/50, the chance of being right is P = (.005+ .4n)/(.01 +.4n+.1n), and is the red curve in the graph above. The authors find you get your maximum reliability when there are two to four agreeing witness.

Confidence of guilt as related to the number of judges that agree and your confidence in the integrity of the judges.

Confidence of guilt as related to the number of judges that agree and the integrity of the judges.

The Royal Society article went on to a approve of a feature of Jewish capital-punishment law. In Jewish law, capital cases are tried by 23 judges. To convict a super majority (13) must find guilty, but if all 23 judges agree on guilt the court pronounces innocent (see chart, or an anecdote about Justice Antonin Scalia). My suspicion, by the way, is that more than 1% of judges and police are crooked or inept, and that the same applies to scientific analysis of mental diseases like diagnosing ADHD or autism, and predictions about stocks or climate change. (Do 98% of scientists really agree independently?). Perhaps there are so many people in US prisons, because of excessive agreement and inaccurate witnesses, e.g Ruben Carter. I suspect the agreement on climate experts is a similar sham.

Robert Buxbaum, March 11, 2016. Here are some thoughts on how to do science right. Here is some climate data: can you spot a clear pattern of man-made change?