Life

Losing a friend

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 1 Comment

My parents adopted Jake as puppy from the Animal Lifeline of Iowa. He was tiny as a puppy, and he was definitely a puppy.

Those are my shoes he’s near. Size 12. Yeah, he was small as a pup.

On one afternoon I was outside with him, he engaged “full puppy mode” and decided to dig around near some loose dirt on the side of the house. When I tried to get to him to pull him away from it, he’d sprint away but only just far enough that he seemed to know he could turn around and sprint right back to the loose dirt and continue digging. It took a few iterations of that before I was finally able to catch him and take him inside, but unfortunately not before he had dug around enough that his entire front was dark gray from the dirt.

Some puppies are “all paws”. Jake was “all ears”. My dad would poke fun at this by calling him “batdog”, and we’d also take him out to the end of the yard and run back toward the house. He’d come running back as well, his ears caught in the wind like kites. I still wonder if we could’ve gotten him running fast enough that he’d fly…

As an adolescent and young adult, Jake discovered a new favorite pastime: trying to take my jeans off me while I was still wearing them — or perhaps he just developed a slight disdain toward me since it was typically me taking him to the end of the yard and running back. Anyway, Jake would clutch onto the hem of my jeans and hang on for dear life. He definitely had strong teeth, because in doing this I’d also be trying to pull away from him, pull him off, or I’d be flinging him around trying to get him loose. If I succeeded, he’d just sprint back over, clutch back on — sometimes taking me to the ground in the process since I’d sometimes be running away, which only egged him on — and start tugging again. Thankfully he never tried to latch on farther up than just the edge of the pants leg, and never tried this when I wore jean shorts instead of long jeans.

When we lost Velcro, our cat, to complications of feline diabetes in March 2001, Jake, was barely a year old at the time, but he had definitely tuned himself in to the solemn air around the house at the time, being a comfort to everyone in the family. I was still in community college at the time and had class that day. Vel had been at the vet overnight, if I remember correctly, so that morning we were all a little down since we felt the end was approaching for him. Jake wasn’t too far away, climbing onto me while I sat in my desk chair in my bedroom. I think he knew something we didn’t.

After moving out, his loud, high-pitched bark would be part of the puppy choir whenever I visited. As he got older he got more relaxed, and we could hear the echo of his “diesel engine” whenever he was revving down to sleep. He took to my wife almost immediately, as did the other dogs, and has been a regular feature of the household until he passed away this morning at the age of 13.

Visiting for Memorial Day is not going to be the same…

Meetings and partings, hand-clasps and farewells, loving nearness and grieving tears,— these are the lot of friendship on earth.
— Anna Robertson Brown Lindsay, PhD

Correction: I originally stated that Jake had been adopted from Animal Rescue League when he was actually adopted from Animal Lifeline.

Fifth Amendment

Misconceptions about Miranda

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 3 Comments

Mirandizing suspects is one of the most recognized of police actions, but also one of the least understood. Many people have numerous misconceptions about how the Miranda rule applies, typically gleaned off television or movies.

Now I’m sure we all know an adaptation of the Miranda rule. It states that you have the right to remain silent, that anything you say can and will be used against you in a Court of Law, and that you have the right to speak with an attorney and have that attorney present during questioning – i.e. “shut up and lawyer up”.

But the one part of the Miranda rule many miss or conveniently forget is the requirement that the suspect be asked if they understand their rights and if they elect to waive them. It’s one of the principle reasons why the Boston Marathon bombing suspect wasn’t Mirandized when he was originally apprehended, as to be Mirandized you have to first be conscious.

So when does a person have to be Mirandized? Must it occur at time of arrest, or can it occur at some later time? Easily this is the largest misconception about Miranda that most people have, as many think it must happen at time of arrest. And the fallacy goes that if you are not Mirandized the moment the police take you into custody, then the arrest is invalid and the suspect walks and everything will be thrown out of Court.

This becomes the case particularly where a suspect is being far from cooperative and the officer may not get the chance to Mirandize a suspect at time of arrest. Do you really think a Court is going to just let a suspect walk because his resistance meant the officer could not Mirandize him on the spot? It doesn’t happen.

But this also stems from the mistaken belief that the Miranda rule is about arrests, and that isn’t the case. Nowhere in Federal jurisprudence will you find the Miranda rule applied to the arrest. Instead the Miranda rule applies only to interrogations and applies the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the interrogation by requiring you be informed that you cannot be forced to incriminate yourself and you have the right to consult counsel, who can better protect you from incriminating yourself. In other words the police have to tell you that you have the right to “shut up and lawyer up”.

Now if the police never talk to the suspect between the arrest and arraignment, the suspect may not be Mirandized until the arraignment. This is something that doesn’t happen often, especially in cases involving felony charges, but it can happen. And if the suspect is never Mirandized because he was never questioned, no harm has been done. But the arrest is not deemed invalid because the suspect was not Mirandized. Prior to or at the arraignment it will be determined if the suspect is in need of counsel and he will be given the opportunity to consult with counsel to ensure he understands the charges that have been presented by the Court.

Now what about this “public safety exception” that the FBI is supposedly invoking with the Boston Marathon bombing suspect?

The exception applies to circumstances wherein public safety is an overriding circumstance to whether a suspect must be informed of the Miranda warning – i.e. cases where the information the person may have is of such vital importance that protocol can be broken and the Miranda rule set aside.

In the case from which the exception is derived, a suspect in custody had a visible, empty holster on his person, leading officers to believe he had stowed the firearm somewhere in the store where he had been apprehended. The suspect was questioned without first being Mirandized, and the suspect gave up the location of the gun. As the suspect had not been Mirandized, the statement and any evidence stemming from the statement were successfully challenged.

The Supreme Court of the United States, however, determined that there was an overriding public safety need – i.e. locating and securing a rogue firearm – that warranted the officers questioning the suspect without having Mirandized him first. Some facts regarding the interrogation, however, that are pointed out in dissenting opinions to that Supreme Court case raise the question of whether such an exception is warranted.

The FBI has taken it upon itself to broadly interpret this exception when the cases they are investigating involve terrorism. As the Boston Marathon bombing has been labeled a “terrorist incident”, the FBI has invoked the public safety exception.

Now the exception does not mean a suspect cannot invoke their rights. It means only that the requirement he be informed of them does not apply.

No suspect can be forced to incriminate himself, and any suspect can request a lawyer at any time. This means the suspect most certainly can invoke their rights at any time after being detained or arrested by police. Nothing stops the suspect from doing so, not the public safety exception, not anything. Not being informed of your rights does not mean you do not have them and cannot invoke them. If the suspect “shuts up and lawyers up”, regardless of whether he’s been Mirandized or not, the interrogation is over unless the suspect actually talks, in which case, anything the suspect says can and will be used against him.

This is actually a good lesson for everyone, and is the one thing I constantly see written by defense attorneys with regard to criminal suspects: if you are arrested by the police, shut your fucking pie hole! Okay perhaps they don’t use language quite to that degree – unless they’re writing on Craigslist or something like that (here and here) – but the sentiment still applies.

The only thing you should say to the police is “I will not make any statement till I’ve spoken with a lawyer”. And anytime after the arrest the police attempt to ask you anything, just repeat “I will not make any statement till I’ve spoken with a lawyer”. And then when you actually talk to an attorney, speak only when the attorney says to do so.

So with the Boston Marathon bombing suspect, he is apparently awake and cooperating according to reports, though he apparently has yet to be Mirandized. But he can invoke his Miranda rights at any time, whether he has been Mirandized or not. The “public safety exception” just means that anything he said that incriminates himself may or may not be admissible against him in Court.

Firearms and Ammunition

Thank you, Wal-Mart

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Today while out on my lunch break, I stopped by the Wal-Mart Supercenter that is a couple miles from where I work. I keep a stock of soda in my desk, and running low, I stopped there to pick some up as they were only a mile further than HyVee with lower prices.

While in there I decided to check out the ammo case to see if I might get lucky in finding either 9mm or .40 S&W ammo. I got lucky and saw they still had a good supply of .40 S&W Winchester 165 grain 100-round "white box", the stuff that my wife and I have come to prefer shooting. They also had a few 100 round boxes of Federal .40 S&W 180 grain for a little less, but again, my wife and I have come to prefer the Winchester ammo.

But the best part of finding the ammo wasn’t just finding it, but noticing that the price I paid is not much higher than what I’ve paid in the past for that ammo. Last time I bought this same ammunition from Wal-Mart, I paid perhaps a dollar less than what I did today, which was shy of $36 for 100 rounds. When times were good, it was more like $33 for 100 rounds of the stuff, so not too much more than times past.

So while many other places seem to be jacking up prices for their ammunition, I’m glad to see that Wal-Mart hasn’t done that. Yes the price has gone up some, but so have the cost of materials from some reports I’ve seen. And the last couple times I’ve been able to find ammunition through Bass Pro and Cabela’s, it also had not been marked up over what they typically charge.

And what keeps them from marking it up is putting a limit on how much ammunition people can buy, which while frustrating, it does help things. At least they’re not trying to cash in on the current panic.

But unfortunately too many people are trying to cash in, such as the numerous people who buy up as much ammunition as they can and then list it on Gunbroker.com for double what they paid for it – a couple listings for the ammunition I just bought today show it going for shy of double what I paid for it in the store.

And if you’re someone who is buying your ammo from Gunbroker at the enormously inflated prices they have listed, you are only exacerbating the problem. So please, stop giving those people your money as they are only in it for the money, only wanting to cash in on the panic. And the sooner people stop giving in to them, the quicker things will return to some semblance of normality.

I mean no one should be paying 50 cents a round or more for 9mm Luger, or really anything, unless you’re talking about Remington Golden Sabre, Speer Gold Dot, Federal HST, or one of the other high quality personal protection ammunition loads – i.e. the ammo that even before the panic was running you upwards of $1 a round or better, even for 9mm.

Fifth Amendment

Revisiting Miranda

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

As a person who owns a blog that doesn’t really get a lot of hits, I tend to notice when one article gets a lot of hits over anything else. Recently, the article that has been targeted for readership is "Mirandizing Terrorists", which ended with this line:

When we start drawing lines on who should not be informed of their rights, pretty soon the number of people who are informed of their rights becomes a minority. This should not even be up for question: Mirandize everyone who is apprehended by civilian law enforcement, citizen or not, regardless of why they are being arrested.

And I still stand by that sentiment.

The search terms bringing people to the article basically asked the question of whether Timothy McVeigh had been read his Miranda rights. Given that McVeigh was tried in a civilian Federal Court, he was at some point read his Miranda rights – whether it was at time of arrest I do not know. Contrary to popular belief, the police do not have to Mirandize you at time of arrest, but must do so prior to any questioning.

Not really understanding immediately why that article was attracting a ton of interest, I remembered that the FBI recently confirmed apprehension of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of two suspects in the recent Boston Marathon bombing, the other suspect, his brother, having been killed in a shootout with law enforcement.

Last night, April 19, 2013, Senator Lindsey Graham tweeted this:

The Law of War allows us to hold individual in this scenario as potential enemy combatant w/o Miranda warnings or appointment of counsel.

And in a statement in which Graham and other Republican Senators joined:

It is clear the events we have seen over the past few days in Boston were an attempt to kill American citizens and terrorize a major American city. The accused perpetrators of these acts were not common criminals attempting to profit from a criminal enterprise, but terrorists trying to injure, maim, and kill innocent Americans. The suspect, based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combatant status. We do not want this suspect to remain silent.

There are a couple problems with this. According to all reports, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a naturalized citizen of the United States, so the laws of war do not apply. He is not an enemy combatant because he is not a foreign national. There is no reason to believe that they were acting on anything but their own volition, and that the brothers were not members or acting on behalf of any recognized terrorist organization, foreign military, or with authorization or sanction of a foreign state power.

So why is he to be treated as an enemy combatant, again? Better yet, why is the government of the United States labeling its own citizens "enemy combatants"? Have we truly lost our sanity?

One thing that has become very scary is how willing both the Democrats and Republicans are willing to just presume that rights protected by the Constitution of the United States suddenly do not exist. The left is doing it with the Second Amendment, as I’ve written about repeatedly here and in other venues, and the right is doing it with the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

We should all certainly be thankful that there were only three fatalities in the bombing, despite there also being 170+ injuries. But at the same time we should not find ourselves so willing to strip rights from others. And certainly we should not be treating every sensational circumstance as if it was an act of war on the United States. After all, we did not treat Jared Lee Loughner as an enemy combatant, nor did we treat James Holmes as an enemy combatant.

Again, this should not be up for question: everyone who is taken into police custody is protected by the Constitution and should be Mirandized.

Second Amendment

Open letter to Gabrielle Giffords

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Madam Representative Giffords,

One thing I find incredulous, if not insulting, is the constant assertion by you, your husband, and other gun control proponents that the "gun lobby" is somehow acting in abeyance of the will of the people.

But before continuing with this response to your recent opinion piece in the New York Times, I must ask one question: have you read the amendments that were rejected on April 17? If you have not, then your opinion on those amendments is about the same as trying to review a book without actually reading it, going only on what other people are telling you.

You asserted that the Senate voted down "common-sense legislation that would have made it harder for criminals and people with dangerous mental illnesses to get hold of deadly firearms".

The votes on amendments that took place on April 17 covered seven (7) amendments that were offered for consideration. Two of those amendments came straight from Senator Feinstein’s "assault weapons" ban proposal (S.150), which was a rewrite and expansion of her previous "assault weapons" ban that was enacted in 1994 (herein called "AWB94") and expired in 2004. Please recall from history that even Senator Feinstein barely held on to her Senate seat in the 1994 election following that bill, and the Republicans swept both the House and Senate using AWB94 as part of their platform.

Unfortunately with President Clinton in office at the time, any attempt at repeal would have been worthless as they did not have the necessary majorities in the Senate and House to overtake a repeal veto. But the damage had been done. Political precedent had been set.

But it wasn’t set by the gun lobby. It was set by the People of the United States. When even Senator Feinstein nearly loses her election following AWB94’s enactment, that sends a message to our elected officials that it was not something the people ever wanted.

Fast forward to January 2011. More specifically Tuscon, Arizona. I think you know to what I’m referring here: the day you very nearly lost your life, but where six people lost theirs, including a 9 year-old girl, a Federal Court judge and one of your aids. Your husband said in front of Congress that if Loughner had a 10 round magazine, as opposed to the 33-round magazine he did use in the first volley of bullets, that Christina Taylor Greene would still be alive. And it’s certainly possible.

But what your husband failed to consider is that a Glock 19, the firearm that Loughner used, is designed to be used with a 15 round magazine, specifically carrying 15 rounds of 9mm NATO ammunition with an extra round chambered. Reducing this to 10 rounds means that the firearm is no longer functioning as designed, but more importantly, it is now functioning quite differently from how it would with a 33-round club sticking out of the magazine well.

This difference in weight could put the bullet at just the right trajectory to have ended your life in an instant in 2011. That is what your husband fails to consider. A 9 year-old girl may have lived – or she still may still have been killed, we cannot know – but you also likely could have been killed as well. It is still possible to kill 6 people with 10 bullets – another fact your husband didn’t consider either.

Now let’s turn our attention to the expanded background check amendment also proposed by Democrats.

The National Instant Check System, or NICS, that is used to perform background checks is only as good as the information it contains. The amendment that was proposed intended to close the so-called "gun show loophole", despite there not being one as most any place that licenses a gun show requires all gun sales to occur only with licensed dealers. Democrats have routinely used the line that "40% of guns are purchased without a background check", something that has been debunked endlessly by numerous sources online, more recently by FactCheck.org among other sources, and by PolitiFact.com back in January.

Beyond this, one thing you need to realize is that the firearms used in the three major mass shootings in the last 2 1/2 years were all acquired with NICS background checks, including the firearm that put a bullet through your head.

The largest shortfall of the NICS system is the information it contains, or rather does not contain that it should. President Obama is evaluating his options to see what can be done to ensure the necessary information is provided to ensure that all persons who are prohibited under Federal law from owning a firearm are listed in NICS. This is where efforts should be focused first. After all, statistics show that less than 1% of criminals obtained their firearms through private transfers.

But still further, Madam Representative, is the notion of fairness here.

I am going to presume that you and your husband are law-abiding citizens. Your husband recently tried a political stunt to purchase an AR-15 he would have later been turning over to police to be destroyed. The attempt at the purchase was to allegedly show how easy it is to obtain such a weapon without taking into account two key facts: 1. he’s a former member of the military, a former commissioned officer at that, who was honorably discharged, and 2. he has no criminal record of any kind.

In other words, your husband is the kind of person who should be able to breeze through the background check system and obtain a firearm of any kind without any hang-ups. What you fail to see is that with expanded gun control laws, let alone expanded background check laws, your husband, with his record and background, would be presumed a criminal until the NICS check came back saying otherwise. The same with my father, a former Chief Petty Officer of the US Navy who served 12 exemplary years. Like your husband, my father should also be able to breeze through the background check system.

Further, what you also fail to see, is that gun control, the very idea of it, casts a shadow over all gun owners, you and your husband included. Those who are anti-gun already look upon law-abiding gun owners as if we are mass murderers in waiting. They think we are just sitting around waiting for the opportunity to kill people. Those who carry a firearm concealed and have gone through their State’s necessary process to obtain that privilege are also looked upon with similar light, that we want to carry concealed just so it’s easier for us to get our firearm to where it’s easier to kill a lot of people.

And I don’t know about you, but I have no desire to kill anyone. And I detest the very idea that I would be treated as if I do.

One of our founding principles in the United States is the idea that a person be presumed innocent until evidence and the proper legal procedures show otherwise beyond reasonable doubt. Yet your organization and the laws you are attempting to get passed instead want to treat every person who owns firearms or wanting to purchase firearms or ammunition as criminals, without a trial, without any evidence against us, purely on presumption based on the fact that we are or want to be firearms owners.

And that is categorically unfair.

You might as well stand next to someone about to fill out the ATF form to purchase a firearm and ask them, "So who are you planning to kill?" Because that is what much of the new proposed ideas in Washington would do by proxy.

The reaction to the current political climate is what politicians were using in making their decisions this week. The shortage of firearms and ammunition is directly related to the fear of additional Federal regulations and restrictions. The people do not want what Washington has to offer, plain and simple. And that was reflected in the votes this week on the various amendments to Senator Reid’s bill.

You are blaming the NRA without realizing they have millions of members. And there are several other organizations out there similar to the NRA, at local, state and national levels, also with potentially millions of members. Millions of households in the United States and tens of millions of people own firearms. We do not want to see Washington enact further restrictions on all of us simply because there exist a few nuts out there.

Please understand this.

Further, please also understand that politicians in Washington and in many State capitols have already made it clear that the current proposed legislation is just the beginning. The question to be explored is what they have planned next. Personally, I’d prefer not ever finding out by never letting them get through what they have planned at this point.

Second Amendment

Feinstein’s bill fails miserably

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Today in the Senate, seven (7) amendments were introduced for Reid’s gun control bill, S. 649 – the "Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013". Three of the amendments were introduced by Democrats, the other four by Republicans. All of them were rejected.

The votes were, by amendment number (60 votes needed to pass):

Of particular note is Amendment 711, which is Feinstein’s attempt to get her "assault weapons" ban tacked onto the bill. This amendment did not include the magazine capacity limitation, focusing only on "assault weapons". By the vote tally, 60 Senators voted against Feinstein’s bill. This basically tells you that the bill is politically toxic. Feinstein will likely view this as a complete defeat on her bill and likely will not try to bring it up again during the remainder of this Congress, but we must be vigilant and keep an eye out for it as any Senator could try to sneak it in.

Among the votes for Yay on that amendment included just one (1) lone Republican: Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois. Of the 38 Democrats that voted in favor of it, Senator McCaskill of my State of Missouri was included. I will likely be sending another letter to her office – and will likely receive a form letter in response.

Along with Senator Angus King (I-ME), fifteen (15) Democrats joined all other Republicans to vote down Feinstein’s bill:

  • Max Baucus (MT)
  • Mark Begich (AK)
  • Michael Bennet (CO)
  • Joe Donnelly (IN)
  • Kay Hagan (NC)
  • Martin Heinrich (NM)
  • Heidi Heitkamp (ND)
  • Tim Johnson (SD)
  • Mary Landrieu (LA)
  • Joe Manchin (WV)
  • Mark Pryor (AR)
  • Jon Tester (MT)
  • Mark Udall (CO)
  • Tom Udall (NM)
  • Mark Warner (VA)

They definitely deserve our thanks for voting this thing out. Again with 60 Senators voting against this, it should send a message to Feinstein that renewing and expanding the old "assault weapons" ban is not going to fly with the American people. The magazine capacity limit was reintroduced separately as Amendment 714, with 54 Senators voting against it.

So the full Senate has said in no uncertain terms that it does not want any part of Feinstein’s legislation. This is certainly good news for gun rights and for all Americans.

But this doesn’t mean we let our guard down. Feinstein or another Senator could try to bring it up again before the 2014 election, try to sneak it on to something else, so we have to remain vigilant. But if it’s not brought up again this Congress, fully expect it to be reintroduced in 2015.

The fight is far from over.

Economics

MMOs and economics

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Recently Cracked.com decided to tackle the subject of MMO – massively-multiplayer online games – in an article called “5 Ways Video Games are Saving Mankind“. Point #5 in the article caught my attention: “You can learn fascinating things about the economy from MMOs”:

You wouldn’t think you could learn a lot about society just by watching a person play a video game (other than that some members of society just cannot play FPS games without continually jumping around like jackasses). But experts are finding that if you want to model economic theories, just find a massively multiplayer online game and follow the imaginary gold. Right now, there are economists who are actually being paid to study how the digital currency flows in the world of fantasy MMOs.

This is certainly quite true. Online games are a great way to model economic activity to see how people actually operate and how incentives influence people. In any economy you will always have people willing to work hard and those trying to get by with the least amount of effort.

pp_logo.en_.pngNow for me, one online game to which I’ve been relatively active over the last 7+ years is Puzzle Pirates. From Puzzle Pirates, it is clearly obvious that many of what libertarians have been saying about economics works and works well.

The Cracked.com article linked above said this:

And the libertarians out there will like reading about how, in all of these cases, the games’ libertarian/anarchic financial models caused their economies to recover from crashes much more rapidly than in the real world (as did things like, say, the lack of a minimum wage).

I think we can go one-step further: we can learn how to avoid many of the economic issues we are seeing today. Allow me to elaborate, again using Puzzle Pirates as the example.

Puzzle Pirates has a somewhat unique economic setup. Some of the base commodities in the game are spawned somewhat randomly, harvested by in-game merchant bots and transported to islands via bot ships. Some of the base commodities can be harvested from populated islands through commodities markets. There are players who actively go out and reserve product on the commodities markets and move it to other islands for profit. This is actually how I operated in the game, and it could be quite profitable if you know what you’re doing.

But everything else in the game must be produced by someone – i.e. real players operating shops and real players working in those shops to produce products. Ships, clothing, swords, even the fabrics and dyes, paint and rum must be produced somehow by someone.

The economy in Puzzle Pirates mimics pure capitalism in these ways. Shops compete with each other to not only sell their product, but also produce their product. Shops advertise their labor rates and prices. Competition reigns supreme not only with the shops, but also on the open waters between the islands.

Then there’s the in-game monetary unit, called the “piece of eight” or “PoE”. The money in the game comes into existence through only one source: pillaging bot ships on the waters between the islands. And it leaves the game (“sunk” from circulation) through numerous methods. This keeps the monetary supply more or less in line with production and consumption by the other players in the game. There is no central authority issuing the money through any means, such as through loans or any other means.

As such there is little, if any room for inflation to set in.

This means that you could earn and save up several thousand PoE, log off the game, and come back on several months later and find that the prices are still about where they were when you left. The prices for base commodities do not fluctuate much, and the competition for labor keeps the economy in relative equilibrium. A lot of products also eventually wear out, or “dust”, keeping a steady stream of demand for these products and the commodities needed to produce them.

As the generation of the currency is relatively automatic, and is scaled to how well players pillage on the open waters, money is tied to effort. And effort is necessary for the money to exist. If no one pillages the bot ships on the ocean, no one has money to spend.

Beyond this, in Puzzle Pirates and most MMOs, there is no recognized concept of a loan. You cannot walk into a bank and get a loan. You can ask other players to lend you money, but any such loans are purely on the honor system, and there are no mechanics in the game to enforce that loan.

Anyone familiar with how banking works in the real world knows that without loans, the concept of fractional reserve banking cannot exist. Without fractional reserve banking, inflation is virtually non-existent.

And yet without loans, without fractional reserve banking, there is still plenty of economic activity on each ocean. The economies are stable and at a relative equilibrium. In the years I’ve been on Puzzle Pirates, I’ve yet to see anything that could be called a “crash” in the economy. Prices fluctuate as supply and demand fluctuates, and the monetary unit is a relative constant within the economy.

In other words, Puzzle Pirates is a model economy from which a lot can be learned.

The company behind Puzzle Pirates does occasionally introduce new products – such as the monthly special class ships – but this does not change the economy much. If people want that new product and can afford to purchase it, they will. If they do not want the product or cannot afford it, they won’t. If they want it but cannot afford it, they will work however they can to gain the money needed to afford it. They are products that compete with all others for the existing money supply. And the system only determines what is required to make the product, not the price. The price of the product charged to consumers is determined by the shop keepers based on costs of production and is also subject to competition and availability.

Taxes in Puzzle Pirates apply only to consumption, with tax rates set by island governors – i.e. live players – and the tax rates are directly reflected in the prices. This creates inter-island competition. Shop keepers can move their shop to a different island if the government sets tax rates too high. And as taxes are reflected in final prices for items purchased at a shop, customers can shop at different islands to find what they want or need, which is helped on by the fact that a person can, by using the ferry, go between populated islands near instantaneously.

And shoppes that can compete succeed and continue to operate. Those who cannot do not.

For a short while in the game, I did operate a shop – a distillery, which makes the rums needed by ships for their voyages. The shop turned a decent profit while I was running it, too. I have a business degree, so taking my knowledge of business and how to earn profits while avoiding losses worked out well for me. It took a bit of effort to pull off, along with at times switching up what I was producing to ensure I was earning the greatest amount of profit.

But then the open market of Puzzle Pirates is what really made it possible for me to do that.

In the end, I think that Puzzle Pirates is a great system from which we can learn a lot. But the one lesson we can learn from all MMOs currently is that the fractional-reserve system must be eliminated, or at least severely scaled back. Eliminate the fractional-reserve system and you will virtually eliminate inflation. Virtually eliminate inflation and the rest of the economy will likely fix itself over a short period of time.

Debt

Right step, wrong reasons

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Oftentimes it is suggested that the first thing to do when starting a debt reduction plan, or repayment plan, is to obtain your credit report and credit scores. To many this seems like a logical step, and it is a good first step, but it is often suggested for the wrong reasons.

Recently I came across a blog article on credit.com called “The First Thing You Must Do Before Paying Off Debt” by Gerri Detweiler. The author recommends getting ahold of your credit report and credit scores, but bases the recommendation off some incorrect ideas. And all of this seems part of a greater issue of this reliance on the credit score, as if maximizing your credit score is the most important thing in the world.

But let’s tackle Ms Detweiler’s 3 reasons why you need your credit reports and credit scores before paying down any debt.

You’ll have a starting point

She starts off on fallacious footing:

Your credit report can help you identify who you owe, along with recent balances.

You may also find debts listed on your credit reports that you had forgotten about, such as collection accounts. Forget to include those in your plan, though, and your efforts may be derailed if those collectors suddenly decide to pursue you for payment but you can’t afford to pay them.

Plus, no matter which approach you choose to get out of debt, you’ll have to know what you owe. Your credit report can help you with that task.

Your credit scores will never show you the true magnitude of your debt. Same with your credit report. As such, relying on them as a starting point will give you a false start. Your credit reports will show two things, however: old accounts that might still be within statute of limitations, as pointed out, and accounts you never opened to begin with.

Getting out of debt would require first getting everything in order. This means taking care of accounts that might have been opened without your explicit authorization – i.e. fraudulent accounts. If you don’t take care of these accounts, they’ll have a bigger impact on you than just a hurt credit score. Why did Gerri not mention this in her article as it seems so blatantly obvious?

But again, never rely on your credit reports and credit scores to give you an idea of the magnitude of what you truly owe. A spreadsheet will do that quite nicely, created from all of the various statements for all of the accounts listed on your credit report. The statements for the accounts should be the single source of truth for the true magnitude of your debt bubble.

So once you’ve gotten the picture into perspective, gotten everything logged in a spreadsheet for easy reference and update, you might as well just ignore your credit score and credit report from this point out. Just focus on paying down your debts.

You’ll understand how your debt affects your credit

And the fallacy continues:

If you’ve been making your monthly payments on time, you may assume your credit is “good.” But, in fact, the balances you are carrying may be dragging down more than just your net worth; they may be hurting your credit scores.

You won’t know that by looking at your credit reports, though. Your credit report just contains information about your accounts, balances and payment history. It won’t analyze whether your debt may be too high.

If you’re committed to paying down debts, who cares what your credit score actually is?!? Your credit score should be the least of your concerns at this point in the game. Instead your concern should be getting your balances down. Worry about your credit score only after you’ve achieved your goal. It is worthless to you until that point.

You can track your progress

Ugh…

Paying down debt is usually a marathon, not a sprint, and most of us are going to need encouragement along the way. Monitoring your credit score each month is one way to get that regular dose of motivation. Over time, as your balances decrease, your credit scores will hopefully get stronger. But even if your credit scores suffer because you choose to settle your debt or file for bankruptcy, keeping track of your score can help you monitor your progress as you work to rebuild your credit and your financial life.

Yes paying down debt is a marathon. I’ve been at it for about 4 years now, trying to pay off a mountain of debt that caved in around me when was unemployed. But you know what I haven’t seen in those last 4 years? My credit score.

Your credit score won’t show you a track of progress on paying down your debts. But do you know what will? Your financial accounting system, for one, which should have the ability to track account balances over time. This will show you quite easily what kind of debt payoff trend you’re currently on. Having a summary balance of all of your debt accounts will also show your progress on getting out of debt.

Your credit score, however, is worthless in that regard.

Marriage and Relationships/Religion/Republican platform

Marriage was redefined long ago

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

In all of this talk about gay marriage, one thing I think a lot of the anti gay-marriage side seem to keep forgetting is simply this: the moment the citizens of the various States allowed their State governments to require a license to be married, they lost all claim to the word marriage and any justification for restriction.

Marriage is not being redefined with gay marriage because marriage has already been redefined long ago, namely back in the mid-1800s when the States took it upon themselves to be the sole licensing authority for marriage. It went from being defined as “religious construct allowing to be married whomever the religion says is allowed” to “construct of law allowing to be married whomever the politicians decide should be allowed”. See the issue with the latter. Does it not bother you that something like marriage is now subject to political will? Or does it only bother you that political will is swinging in a direction you may not want it to go?

Imagine a gay man and a straight man are having an argument that gets so heated a crowd forms around them to watch the spectacle. Then as the argument appears to be reaching a point where neither is willing to concede, the straight man appeals to the crowd, “How many of you think this gay guy should be able to marry his boyfriend?” Regardless of how many hands go up, why should the gay man’s ability to marry his boyfriend be subject to the will of the crowd? Or the political will of the entirety of society?

But that’s not the only concern.

Once government became the sole licensing authority for marriages, marriage and any applicable restrictions came under the domain of the Fourteenth Amendment. Had our previous generations resisted when their respective States tried to institute marriage licensing, we would not be having the debates and confrontations we are today, because there would be no need. They established the inevitability when they wanted to control marriage by preventing interracial marriages, overturned ultimately by the Supreme Court in 1961.

Then the State governments and the Federal government compounded the problem by establishing rights, privileges and benefits to married couples, further cementing the applicability of the Fourteenth Amendment, while simultaneously denying to certain individuals the ability to enjoy those benefits, rights and privileges by denying them the legal ability to marry a person of their mutual choice. This was the case with interracial marriage and remains the case with gay marriage.

In short, if you don’t want political will to work against you, then you should not work it against someone else — the golden rule applied to politics.

Firearms and Ammunition

Be concerned, but not paranoid

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

A lot of people in recent months have become quite attentive to the government’s actions and are questioning a lot of what the government is doing. This is certainly good. But unfortunately a lot of the conspiratorial mindset ends up seeping into this.

So too was the case when reports surfaced that the DHS had planned to purchase about 1.5 billion rounds of ammunition over the course of 5 years. On Facebook I said this about the report:

So 1 of 3 things is going on: 1. the DHS is trying to actively arm themselves in lieu of some domestic incident, 2. they are trying to secure a price on ammunition before ammunition prices go up (even a couple cent per round increase on that much ammunition is going to sting on an annual budget), or 3. they plan to hire and train several hundred thousand more officers over the next year or two…

A fourth possibility is just that they’re trying to siphon the ammunition market to make it more difficult for civilians to get ammunition. But I wanted to give the DHS the benefit of the doubt by saying that they were merely trying to secure a particular ammunition price or establish a delivery contract for a set price. If recent reports from the DHS are correct, that seems to be what they’re doing.

One thing a lot of people don’t understand or realize is just how much ammunition law enforcement consumes in a given year. They have to practice. A lot. I own a firearm that was formerly a police issue manufactured probably about 20 years ago. It has likely eaten a lot of ammunition in its active life as a law enforcement sidearm.

Now people have pointed out that the order is mostly for hollow-point ammunition. Hollow-points are carried by law enforcement and those carrying concealed for personal protection. The hollow point on the round ensures the round will mushroom or "fan out" and give it a much greater chance of staying in whatever it hits, whether it be an intended target, wall or floor, or at least expend so much of its energy that it may not have enough energy left to be lethal should it pass through whatever it hits.

In pointing out that the orders are for hollow points, they also point out that hollow points are not used for practice. Well not typically used for practice.

The fallacy of this notion comes with one simple thing that any firearms owner must know: you need to practice with the ammunition you intend to carry. This means if you’re going to be regularly carrying Remington Golden Sabre ammunition in your carry firearm, you need to also be expending that ammunition at the range. Why? You want to make sure that that ammunition will cycle through your firearm without any difficulty. And if it’s problematic, you need to change to something else.

Now, the fact the DHS is ordering over 1.5 billion rounds of hollow point ammunition is certainly concerning.

But taking everything I’ve learned over the last couple years about firearms and firearms handling into account, along with how much ammunition law enforcement typically goes through, I don’t find it entirely unusual. It sounds to me like they’re trying to lock in some kind of delivery contract or price – and given the current market for ammunition, I don’t blame them.

It wouldn’t surprise me if many law enforcement agencies are trying to do the same, and if one were to look back at past orders for ammunition by the DHS and other Federal agencies, we’d probably find similarities. It’s getting a lot of attention this time around because of what is going on in Washington and the attempts to enact greater gun controls. The DHS order running alongside the debates in the Senate on a gun control package – that is likely to die in the House of Representatives – makes it sound like the government wants to ensure they are armed and the people are not.

But while one certainly needs to be concerned about the DHS and other law enforcement orders for ammunition, some more thought needs to be expended to keep such concerns from becoming conspiratorial paranoia.