[davelj]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance]I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure, as of the past few decades, most is grown stateside. California is like a $14 billion alone.[/quote]

I’m going off memory here, but as I recall something like 60% of the Mexican drug cartels’ revenue is from marijuana, but… only a small fraction of that actually goes to California, as Californians grow a lot of their own in-state (as you point out). The larger concern for the cartels with respect to California legalizing marijuana is that CA’s pot would get exported (illegally) to other states, which would have a material impact on the cartel’s drug sales.

[davelj]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance]I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure, as of the past few decades, most is grown stateside. California is like a $14 billion alone.[/quote]

I’m going off memory here, but as I recall something like 60% of the Mexican drug cartels’ revenue is from marijuana, but… only a small fraction of that actually goes to California, as Californians grow a lot of their own in-state (as you point out). The larger concern for the cartels with respect to California legalizing marijuana is that CA’s pot would get exported (illegally) to other states, which would have a material impact on the cartel’s drug sales.

[davelj]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance]I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure, as of the past few decades, most is grown stateside. California is like a $14 billion alone.[/quote]

I’m going off memory here, but as I recall something like 60% of the Mexican drug cartels’ revenue is from marijuana, but… only a small fraction of that actually goes to California, as Californians grow a lot of their own in-state (as you point out). The larger concern for the cartels with respect to California legalizing marijuana is that CA’s pot would get exported (illegally) to other states, which would have a material impact on the cartel’s drug sales.

[davelj]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance]I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure, as of the past few decades, most is grown stateside. California is like a $14 billion alone.[/quote]

I’m going off memory here, but as I recall something like 60% of the Mexican drug cartels’ revenue is from marijuana, but… only a small fraction of that actually goes to California, as Californians grow a lot of their own in-state (as you point out). The larger concern for the cartels with respect to California legalizing marijuana is that CA’s pot would get exported (illegally) to other states, which would have a material impact on the cartel’s drug sales.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]I don’t know enough about the jobs to determine that, and neither do you.
[/quote]

If you were to substitute the words “this subject” for “the jobs” then it would apply to most subjects discussed on the internet. My point is that if you restricted internet commentary to only those subjects in which the commenters actually “knew enough” to intelligently discuss the issue at hand… *poof*… 90% of all commentary would disappear.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]I don’t know enough about the jobs to determine that, and neither do you.
[/quote]

If you were to substitute the words “this subject” for “the jobs” then it would apply to most subjects discussed on the internet. My point is that if you restricted internet commentary to only those subjects in which the commenters actually “knew enough” to intelligently discuss the issue at hand… *poof*… 90% of all commentary would disappear.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]I don’t know enough about the jobs to determine that, and neither do you.
[/quote]

If you were to substitute the words “this subject” for “the jobs” then it would apply to most subjects discussed on the internet. My point is that if you restricted internet commentary to only those subjects in which the commenters actually “knew enough” to intelligently discuss the issue at hand… *poof*… 90% of all commentary would disappear.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]I don’t know enough about the jobs to determine that, and neither do you.
[/quote]

If you were to substitute the words “this subject” for “the jobs” then it would apply to most subjects discussed on the internet. My point is that if you restricted internet commentary to only those subjects in which the commenters actually “knew enough” to intelligently discuss the issue at hand… *poof*… 90% of all commentary would disappear.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]I don’t know enough about the jobs to determine that, and neither do you.
[/quote]

If you were to substitute the words “this subject” for “the jobs” then it would apply to most subjects discussed on the internet. My point is that if you restricted internet commentary to only those subjects in which the commenters actually “knew enough” to intelligently discuss the issue at hand… *poof*… 90% of all commentary would disappear.

[davelj]

[quote=walterwhite]after all this effort to prop up the housing market, doesn’t it just seem like there has to be a catch; like, we’ll lower the limit, but give you a tax credit for the difference, or these are the new rules, but if we begin to notice it has any bad effect, we’ll immediately revoke them and go back where we were, or some other freaky shenanigans.[/quote]

I think the lower conforming limits will stick without a catch. There’s just not a lot of political support for high conforming limits, and now that Fannie/Freddie are owned by We the People, this is a political issue. The median house price in the U.S. is only ~$150K currently (and it’s ~$300K in San Diego County) . There’s very little political will to help out that ~5% of folks who are buying a $680K+ home. Nor should there be.

[davelj]

[quote=walterwhite]after all this effort to prop up the housing market, doesn’t it just seem like there has to be a catch; like, we’ll lower the limit, but give you a tax credit for the difference, or these are the new rules, but if we begin to notice it has any bad effect, we’ll immediately revoke them and go back where we were, or some other freaky shenanigans.[/quote]

I think the lower conforming limits will stick without a catch. There’s just not a lot of political support for high conforming limits, and now that Fannie/Freddie are owned by We the People, this is a political issue. The median house price in the U.S. is only ~$150K currently (and it’s ~$300K in San Diego County) . There’s very little political will to help out that ~5% of folks who are buying a $680K+ home. Nor should there be.

[davelj]

[quote=walterwhite]after all this effort to prop up the housing market, doesn’t it just seem like there has to be a catch; like, we’ll lower the limit, but give you a tax credit for the difference, or these are the new rules, but if we begin to notice it has any bad effect, we’ll immediately revoke them and go back where we were, or some other freaky shenanigans.[/quote]

I think the lower conforming limits will stick without a catch. There’s just not a lot of political support for high conforming limits, and now that Fannie/Freddie are owned by We the People, this is a political issue. The median house price in the U.S. is only ~$150K currently (and it’s ~$300K in San Diego County) . There’s very little political will to help out that ~5% of folks who are buying a $680K+ home. Nor should there be.

[davelj]

[quote=walterwhite]after all this effort to prop up the housing market, doesn’t it just seem like there has to be a catch; like, we’ll lower the limit, but give you a tax credit for the difference, or these are the new rules, but if we begin to notice it has any bad effect, we’ll immediately revoke them and go back where we were, or some other freaky shenanigans.[/quote]

I think the lower conforming limits will stick without a catch. There’s just not a lot of political support for high conforming limits, and now that Fannie/Freddie are owned by We the People, this is a political issue. The median house price in the U.S. is only ~$150K currently (and it’s ~$300K in San Diego County) . There’s very little political will to help out that ~5% of folks who are buying a $680K+ home. Nor should there be.

[davelj]

[quote=walterwhite]after all this effort to prop up the housing market, doesn’t it just seem like there has to be a catch; like, we’ll lower the limit, but give you a tax credit for the difference, or these are the new rules, but if we begin to notice it has any bad effect, we’ll immediately revoke them and go back where we were, or some other freaky shenanigans.[/quote]

I think the lower conforming limits will stick without a catch. There’s just not a lot of political support for high conforming limits, and now that Fannie/Freddie are owned by We the People, this is a political issue. The median house price in the U.S. is only ~$150K currently (and it’s ~$300K in San Diego County) . There’s very little political will to help out that ~5% of folks who are buying a $680K+ home. Nor should there be.

[davelj]

6-figure lifeguards… what does this no longer surprise…

http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/2011/05/12/o-c-s-200k-lifeguards-spark-international-shock/82891/

[Author]

Posts