Yes. Completely irrational. I can secure $60k+ in a matter of hours to purchase a new Tesla or Merc. Drive it off the lot and suddenly worth less than the loan. Real Estate, however, can take 45 days to close a loan when the projected value of the asset is surely positive. Antiquated and balkanized title process and (I suspect) unhealthy regulatory requirements are a bog. From there, I think it is simply inefficiencies in the lenders' operations. Would love an insider's take.
I'm on my 3rd house. The escrow length isn't just about the loan, it's also to give you time to complete inspections. Home inspectors -- especially in hot areas -- can be booked out for weeks.
It also gives the sellers time to find a new place/get packed and moved.
The lender gets their ducks in a row because they're going to package and sell the loan, and there are lots of compliance issues to jump thru to get it sold (properly) after what happened during the crash. Lenders are very careful now, verifying down payment sources, income, credit, etc.
I also did cars for a while and I can tell you most (all?) in-house car financing is provisional, and they do the hard work AFTER you drive off the lot. They like it this way because once you've parked that shiny car in your driveway and shown your friends, you'll work hard to keep it should something come up with the financing. If it doesn't work out they can (at worst) tow the car back to the lot. Not quite that easy with a house ;)
The contingency period in the contract is parallel with the financing process. They are not intertwined - apart from the contract being contingent upon securing a loan. If the inefficiency results from compliance issues due to needing to rate, package, and sell the loan, then couldn't an enterprising banker market speed of closing and absorb moderately more risk by having the loan on his books for a few additional weeks? In a competitive market, cash offers (one less contingency, sure but also speedy closing) are preferred.
Speed is just not that important for most residential purchases. The most critical thing is ability to close, which is where cash excels. Predictability is #1 - given the choice between 80% chance to close in 10 days (remaining 20% the deal falls thru) or 99% chance to close in 30, almost everyone takes the latter, all else being equal. I just can't think of any situation where a turbo close gets you so many more deals that it's worth the extra risk as a lender.
On the other hand, people often pay extra for a lender that has a history of closing on-time.
That was my experience too. My guy at Wells Fargo knocked it out of the park. SOFI's service was not great. Slow to respond , often not responding to my direct questions with the info I needed, slow to move through underwriting etc. Oh and terrible rates compared to the banks I talked to. Even their technology was worse, in terms of being able to upload docs and track my loan.
I kinda think it is with an over-the-top deliverable being physical presence. Being here is only the baseline. Executing on strategy is what keeps the paychecks rolling in.
(disclosure, used to work for GB), but doubtful that changed much. It's likely the fact that feeds have been dominated by published and pirated content for a long time. Individuals are publishing less: http://www.inc.com/jeff-bercovici/facebook-sharing-crisis.ht...
If there are lots of resources more or less available, then a lot of "hunting and gathering" types can do things with them, and some other types can see about what it takes to make resources rather than just consume them. The former tends to be competitive, and the latter thrives on cooperation.
The biggest problems are that the "enterprisers" very often have no sense that they are living in a system that has many ecological properties and needs to be "tended and gardened".
Not an easy problem because we are genetically hunters and gatherers, we had to invent most of the actual sources of wealth, and these inventions were not done by the most typical human types.
Yet another thing where education with a big "E" should really make a difference (today American education itself has pretty much forgotten the "citizenship" part, which is all about systems and tending them.
How does this effect the supply chain? Let me re-phrase that, are we still criminalizing the supply side? If so, we're just exporting our violence south of the USA border.
We'll have to see whether grow-at-home will be permitted. Here in Canada it is illegal to operate a spirits distillery in your home. I wouldn't be surprised if it is not legalized, as it opens up avenues for "criminal selling", ie: people growing at home and selling it - bypassing taxation. And, let's be honest, government revenue from taxation is the real reason legalization is even on the table.
It doesn't matter how grow-at-home laws will be written. There will always be those people who will exceed the "personal plants limit" to grow and sell to friends / the street. Especially if legally obtainable strains wind up being very limited, or if the tax is too expensive.
The whole system including strain restrictions and pricing (+ taxation) is going to be interesting to watch unfold. If officials think that your average daily consumers - not the new people who will toke once legal, but those who already consume daily - are going to tolerate an increase of any amount for the product... enjoy the black market that will continue to proliferate.
I do love the lackluster "legalization will keep weed out of kids' hands!" How exactly does that way of thinking even begin to work? ;)
Here in British Columbia my friends who smoke prefer going to the dispensaries that have opened over their old local drug dealer. It is more convenient to go to a store with regular hours than to arrange a meeting. They also get to choose exactly which strains they are buying instead of having to take what is available. I think it is going to be very difficult to earn a decent income only selling weed.
Edit; there was a house worth 1.5 million for sale nearby, a beautiful custom home on a big lot, for sale for 400,000 because it had a grow op which is the same as a meth lab in the eyes of the law. No bank will lend on the property, the occupancy permit for the house is revoked, and the soil is considered contaminated until proven otherwise. All for a bunch of plants! Many laws and regulations will have to catch up for people to be able to legally grow at home with no repercussions.
A friend wanted to buy the ex grow op house and he couldn't find a way to ever get a mortgage on it. And he works at a bank selling mortgages. So while some houses may be trashed by grow ops they are all assumed to be trashed and there is no way to remove the black mark from the property.
Shouldn't that drop the price until someone can buy it outright? You know, supply and demand? What's keeping the price up? Is the previous owner unwilling to sell so low?
the 1.5 million dollar house was for sale for 400,000. I'd say the price did drop. The bank had taken the house back from the owner because he was so far underwater on it and it was the bank selling it at 400,000.
i use to pickup on the street but got annoyed with having to arrange a meetup with a dealer/supplier, the dispensary is much more convenient.
dont have to wait on anyone, the businesses are open at set times with a large variety.
definately paying more for the convenience and consistency.
i use to pay 160-200$ CAD an ounce on the street (5$-7$/gram).
at the dispensary i rarely pickup below $10/gram strains.
more recently i have been getting $12-13/gram strains, but thats where i draw the limit.
there are $15+/gram strains popping up at dispensaries that i dont think are worth it.
if you are a heavy consumer... it will hit you hard in the pocket book making the transition.
i was spending on average $1000+ a month (#1 customer at 4000+ member dispensary) till i made some life decisions.
i partake, but maybe <$100/month i spend now (i prefer it more than alcohol).
as per the supply chain, most are illegal drug suppliers legitimatizing their business into legal/license distributors (using illegal funds to build multi-million dollar govt approved factories for growing and selling to licensed shops and USA).
as per the in-home growing or GrowOp houses... cant believe some people still make a mess with wiring, smell, mold etc.. this was common 10+ years ago... but nowadays its hard to have problems like this.
LED lights + smell proof rooms + good ventillation + air filters to mask smell, its very hard to get caught... and you dont have to do any damage (ran high pressure aeroponics setup that vented out of top of house, was in a enclosed smellproof 8x10 closet space).
you can run a very good "clean" setup for a few hundred dollars.
anyways, anything is good in moderation... overdoing it can lead to risks. from the amount i use to smoke compared to now, i feel i have less anxiety when not high in stressfull situations and able to cope better (giving me less reasons to smoke up)
> If officials think that your average daily consumers - not the new people who will toke once legal, but those who already consume daily - are going to tolerate an increase of any amount for the product... enjoy the black market that will continue to proliferate.
I'm sure most people will pay more for better quality, same way I buy wine from LCBO instead of fermenting it myself in plastic barrels (which I could totally do for 1/10 the price).
I live in Colorado, and thought it was going to be the same way for myself and for the general public.
However, over the past year or so I've found it more convenient to visit a store than my "guy". There's a store within walking distance to my home, predictable hours, regular sales and loyalty programs.
All in all, I'm happy to pay more for those things. Many feel the same.
Yes, the black market will still exist- but I think you'll see more local growers fueling the market than south of the border cartels.
> Here in Canada it is illegal to operate a spirits distillery in your home. I wouldn't be surprised if it is not legalized, as it opens up avenues for "criminal selling", ie: people growing at home and selling it - bypassing taxation.
Stills are also very dangerous which is a good enough reason to keep them out of homes. Your pot plant isn't going to explode as a high pressure fireball.
The key difference is that quality marijuana can be grown indoors for personal consumption, whereas it's very difficult to make a quality whiskey or beer by comparison.
So I'm curious what effect this will have on prices. Because if pricing is anything like alcohol in Ontario then there will still be a lively black market and, if legalized, a personal-growing boom.
In Ontario alcohol can only be bought at two government run retail stores called LCBO and "The Beer Store" at much higher prices than the US and even Montreal. Unlike in some other provinces you can't walk into a grocery or corner store, you have to go to the predefined locations of the alcohol stores, which typically close at 9pm, making it harder to get alcohol. Especially if you don't drive.
I hope they don't make the same mistake with weed, because the market dynamics are different.
The bar is much for wine/beer higher than weed in terms of quality. And whiskey/rum/voldka is not even an option. This is largely due to gains in technology due to hydroponics and decades of seed cultivation.
That plus the extend time weed has been on the black market made the information on how to grow it widely available to average consumers. No trade secrets there really.
Speaking as someone with experience and friends who do both I can assure you it's far easier to make quality beer than it is to learn all the ins and outs of growing quality cannabis. You have it exactly backwards.
Is potency a significant portion of "quality", in which case you could just smoke twice as much? Or is the effects different if you don't do it properly?
> "The key difference is that quality marijuana can be grown indoors for personal consumption, whereas it's very difficult to make a quality whiskey or beer by comparison."
wat?
my friend, i fear you have overlooked modern homebrewing; world-class beer is being made in peoples' kitchens / basements / garages all over the place. :)
Which is a separate issue. I prefer my neighbors not to stink up the whole building by [cooking smelly food|smearing shit on their walls|...], but that shouldn't make it illegal.
The housing association/board (or whatever the proper english term is) might have something to say though.
> I prefer my neighbors not to stink up the whole building by [cooking smelly food|smearing shit on their walls|...], but that shouldn't make it illegal.
This example could have been chosen better. While you're correct that your dislike of the smell isn't, in the absence of other facts, a great reason for criminalizing your neighbors smearing shit on their walls, that is in fact illegal, it is illegal for very good reasons, and you dislike the smell for the same reasons doing it is illegal. In that case, the smell is actually telling you something important.
I think we have more of a "this has to be allowed" exception for cooking food than we have a general policy of "we won't take smells into account when deciding what's allowed".
There are plenty of commercial grade filters available for just about any space. Perhaps your HOA/apartment complex could form regulations around ventilation, filtration, waste disposal, etc..
I live in a triplex from 1910. My 'ventilation' is opening the front and back balcony door. The outside air often stinks like skunk. It's actually pretty nauseating.
The pot-smokers tend to be neither the very regulation following kind of people, nor the kind of people who have the money for this stuff, nor people who are actually considerate enough of other people. For example, a vaporizer helps with smell, and that's a very cheap solution, but apparently rolling it so much more fun.
> “We will introduce legislation in spring 2017 that ensures we keep marijuana out of the hands of children and profits out of the hands of criminals,”
It sounds like they plan on legitimizing the whole thing.
Legalizing sale and taxation through govt supported venues, much like how alcohol is sold in Canada. Still illegal to sell it as an individual without a permit from the govt, as is the case with alcohol in Canada.
Alcohol sales (and drinking age) vary across provinces - I don't think any will let you sell your homemade liquor, but Ontario is very restrictive, while Quebec (for example) is relatively relaxed.
I don't know about the Canadian proposal, but in Colorado, Oregon and Washington, all recreational sales go through a government controlled agricultural pipeline (not Mexico).
Reasonable person standard. A civilian does not typically get that close to a police. If I got that close to a traffic cop, I would probably be in jail.
Police are civilians. Some people see this as hair-splitting, but it's a very important distinction.
> If I got that close to a traffic cop, I would probably be in jail.
In the US, if you're jailed just for being in close proximity to a police officer, then you've been jailed illegally. (If, however, you refuse to give the guy some room when he asks for it, then you can be detained and (maybe) jailed.)
> Police are civilians ... it's a very important distinction.
The misuse of the word is a symptom of the real problem, it is deeply ingrained in police culture that they are fundamentally different. I think it was one of Dave Grossman's books, an author that enjoys a military and LEO following, that put forward the idea that they are sheepdogs - protecting the flock from the wolves. So that is a big problem, as the idea has gotten picked up in popular culture.
I don't really mind cops insisting that they aren't civilians, because I agree with them to a point - the root word doesn't seem to apply anymore. That is unlikely to change without a major overhaul in the standard escalation of force model, where the officer is taught to control a situation by being one level of force above everybody else - making them aggressors by default.
> The misuse of the word is a symptom of the real problem...
Agreed.
> I don't really mind cops insisting that they aren't civilians...
I do. ;) Because...
> [Police use as a] standard [situation control mechanism the] escalation of force model, where the officer is taught to control a situation by being one level of force above everybody else - making them aggressors by default.
Military police use de-escalation of force by default when interacting with non-combatants. It is drilled and drilled and drilled into their heads that the very fact that they are armed and/or armored automatically escalates the situation, so they MUSTcontinuously work to de-escalate the situation from the microsecond that they arrive on the scene.
Civilian police would be so much more competent and so much more reasonable if they had the same training that actual military personnel receive.
The only difference between what I said and what you said is that you've added that MP training emphasizes deescalation. Both MPs and civilian police observe the same force continuum, but it seems to me that MPs are simply more disciplined. I don't think it is realistic to try and bring regular cops up to that standard of discipline, it would be much easier to simply provide a less flexible justification for violence. Many years ago when I was in USMC security force I remember being trained on actions that nudge the escalation of force - which was likely the first time I heard the phrase "furtive movement". While I'd seen a fair amount force applied subsequent to that period of instruction, I never heard that justification used. It seems to be the go to justification outside of the military.
My point is that giving cops the latitude that the escalation of force provides is like giving the CEO's 15 year old nephew the commit bit and letting him write safety critical software in non-MISRA C.
Aside from your first sentence, and your (entirely reasonable!) opinions about the difficulty of providing proper training to civilian police, I agree almost entirely with your commentary. [0]
The core of my objection to police personnel calling non-police "civilians" is twofold:
* It lets police benefit from the competency halo projected by the military and their training when -in fact- most police get precious little training.
* It seeks to create a deep division between the police and the communities they serve. Police should be members of (and get to know) the communities that they police.
[0] It's important that cops be able to react with force to uncontrollable, imminently dangerous situations. However, I expect that those situations pretty much never actually happen. ;)
We generally are in agreement, just for different reasons. Whatever cache that halo might have bought them is long gone, thanks to the media's collective realization that stories of police misconduct are of public interest - with no ill effect on the popular opinion of the military (that I have noticed). I think civilian police are just trying to find a way of distinguishing themselves from those subject to their protection, which as you said, creates a deep division. I think they'd change their mind if the cost was trading their constitutional protections for the UCMJ... freedom has a flavor that those who have never been subject to an article 134 will never know :)
I don't think it is realistic to try and bring regular cops up to that standard of discipline
Why is that? I can understand if you think there's a practical problem with doing so (but would still lament that), but I think that ideally "regular cops" should absolutely be held up to that same standard. I mean, look... these people are literally given life-and-death responsibility over the general populace. They should be held to a ridiculously high standard.
It is a practical problem. The military has an extremely long institutional memory and has perfected the process of mental conditioning over hundreds of years, to the point where 18 year olds can be given the power to kill and dropped into situations with little to no supervision - and it generally doesn't result in an x-rated version of Lord of the Flies. The methods that the military uses to accomplish this would not work for police without a costly tear down and slow rebuild. The list of methods is far too long to list here, but they include a culture of self policing enabled by a meaningful shared experience (basic redefinition of family), and a mythology that requires a carefully managed narrative of history (Gen MacArthur's farewell address at West Point is full of examples).
Even if it wasn't life or death, they still determine the outcome of your physical well being, future and livelihood. Giving them access to lethal force with practical impunity is the icing on the why-give-them-so-much-power cake.
> Police are civilians. Some people see this as hair-splitting, but it's a very important distinction.
I've heard that before, but never seen any good support for it. I checked several dictionaries, and they say that police are not civilians. Here are the definitions of "civilian" they give.
New Oxford American Dictionary: "a person not in the armed services or the police force".
Merriam-Webster: "one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force".
Cambridge English Dictionary: "a person who is not a member of the police, the armed forces, or a fire department".
Dictionary.com (which uses Random House, I believe): "a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization"
Macmillan: "someone who does not belong to the military or the police".
There are some contexts in which "civilian" means anyone not in the military, but those are generally situations dealing with international laws of war or military law.
Dictionaries adapt to popular usage, so unless your argument is that popular usage is correct usage - dictionaries aren't good support either. Check the word origin, it originally distinguished those who are subject to civil law and those who aren't (US service members are subject to the Uniform code of military justice). Over the last couple hundred years it became less specific and was used to distinguish belligerents from the civil. More recently (as in I don't remember it being used this way 20 years ago) it has been used to distinguish those with authority from the lesser-thans.
I prefer the old definition, because now - due to the corruption of the word, we have no unambiguous word to describe the original concept. We already have plenty of words to describe those without authority.
I'd say police aren't civilians because they're not acting in their own right; they're a specific designated extension of the state.
It probably depends on your state and your police force though. Gendarmes are military trained IIRC, also in Italy there are something like 7 different types of police.
