[ucodegen]

I vote #2. It was ‘impolite’ on the part of the teenage son.

1) What if it wasn’t the teenage son of the person checking out at the grocery store? What if it was a friend/associate of the person at the checkout? Would that change your assessment?
2) What if the teenage son or associate brought a whole basket back to checkout as separate? Would that change your assessment? – we do check line length to see which one to wait in @ checkout (unless you are trying to scope someone out…)

Considering some of the wierdo’s out there, I don’t have too much of a problem with a son/daughter piggy-backing on the parent’s checkout, it may be safer for them depending upon their age. That said, if the parent told them to go to the end of the line, it would have taught the son/daughter some important lessons;
1) Be considerate of those waiting in line.
2) Don’t make last minute decisions (or decisions in general) and expect everyone else to compensate for it.

[ucodegen]

I vote #2. It was ‘impolite’ on the part of the teenage son.

1) What if it wasn’t the teenage son of the person checking out at the grocery store? What if it was a friend/associate of the person at the checkout? Would that change your assessment?
2) What if the teenage son or associate brought a whole basket back to checkout as separate? Would that change your assessment? – we do check line length to see which one to wait in @ checkout (unless you are trying to scope someone out…)

Considering some of the wierdo’s out there, I don’t have too much of a problem with a son/daughter piggy-backing on the parent’s checkout, it may be safer for them depending upon their age. That said, if the parent told them to go to the end of the line, it would have taught the son/daughter some important lessons;
1) Be considerate of those waiting in line.
2) Don’t make last minute decisions (or decisions in general) and expect everyone else to compensate for it.

[ucodegen]

I vote #2. It was ‘impolite’ on the part of the teenage son.

1) What if it wasn’t the teenage son of the person checking out at the grocery store? What if it was a friend/associate of the person at the checkout? Would that change your assessment?
2) What if the teenage son or associate brought a whole basket back to checkout as separate? Would that change your assessment? – we do check line length to see which one to wait in @ checkout (unless you are trying to scope someone out…)

Considering some of the wierdo’s out there, I don’t have too much of a problem with a son/daughter piggy-backing on the parent’s checkout, it may be safer for them depending upon their age. That said, if the parent told them to go to the end of the line, it would have taught the son/daughter some important lessons;
1) Be considerate of those waiting in line.
2) Don’t make last minute decisions (or decisions in general) and expect everyone else to compensate for it.

[ucodegen]

Kinda hard to prove it was the shop’s fault if it doesn’t match up. For instance, I could have had a cat on the car going into the shop and taken the cat off after passing. (not that I would do that).

The newer catalytic converters do not create an exhaust obstruction. They are a ‘honey-comb’ design and you can almost look right through them. The older ‘bead’ type could get obstructed though. The newer cats are actually less of an obstruction than a muffler.

The odd part about all this CARB sticker nonsense is, the car was “smogged” with non CARB legal parts in place and actually ran cleaner than stock.

Some of the earlier legal replacement parts didn’t have EO/CARB numbers stamped on them. This is a problem for my old truck(have to keep the paperwork). Many performance parts will also make the vehicle run cleaner. The whole CARB thing is really screwy. Do you know that it is not legal to switch a emissions regulated carburetor car over to fuel injection, even though that does significantly reduce emissions and increase gas mileage. It is ‘tampering’ with the existing emissions equipment.

The initial ‘premise’ on how the emissions laws were written, was that the manufacturers could get a cleaner running car than most anyone else. This is contradicted by the fact that there were many advances in the technology that US auto manufacturers declined to put into production. There were people back in the mid/late 1920’s that were building dual overhead cam versions of the Ford model T engine (which is an flathead or L head). Oddly, one of these were “Louis and Arthur Chevrolet”, called the “Motel T Ford Frontenac”. Others were Jack Gallivan (Model T Gallivan), Harry Miller.

It took the Japanese producing overhead cam and fuel injected engines across their models lines, for technology to be placed into production by the US manufacturers. The US manufacturers ignored the German cars (which also had the tech) because they considered them ‘fringe/specialty/luxury’ cars. (Mercedes Benz was using OHC in the late 20’s, early 30’s)

[ucodegen]

Kinda hard to prove it was the shop’s fault if it doesn’t match up. For instance, I could have had a cat on the car going into the shop and taken the cat off after passing. (not that I would do that).

The newer catalytic converters do not create an exhaust obstruction. They are a ‘honey-comb’ design and you can almost look right through them. The older ‘bead’ type could get obstructed though. The newer cats are actually less of an obstruction than a muffler.

The odd part about all this CARB sticker nonsense is, the car was “smogged” with non CARB legal parts in place and actually ran cleaner than stock.

Some of the earlier legal replacement parts didn’t have EO/CARB numbers stamped on them. This is a problem for my old truck(have to keep the paperwork). Many performance parts will also make the vehicle run cleaner. The whole CARB thing is really screwy. Do you know that it is not legal to switch a emissions regulated carburetor car over to fuel injection, even though that does significantly reduce emissions and increase gas mileage. It is ‘tampering’ with the existing emissions equipment.

The initial ‘premise’ on how the emissions laws were written, was that the manufacturers could get a cleaner running car than most anyone else. This is contradicted by the fact that there were many advances in the technology that US auto manufacturers declined to put into production. There were people back in the mid/late 1920’s that were building dual overhead cam versions of the Ford model T engine (which is an flathead or L head). Oddly, one of these were “Louis and Arthur Chevrolet”, called the “Motel T Ford Frontenac”. Others were Jack Gallivan (Model T Gallivan), Harry Miller.

It took the Japanese producing overhead cam and fuel injected engines across their models lines, for technology to be placed into production by the US manufacturers. The US manufacturers ignored the German cars (which also had the tech) because they considered them ‘fringe/specialty/luxury’ cars. (Mercedes Benz was using OHC in the late 20’s, early 30’s)

[ucodegen]

Kinda hard to prove it was the shop’s fault if it doesn’t match up. For instance, I could have had a cat on the car going into the shop and taken the cat off after passing. (not that I would do that).

The newer catalytic converters do not create an exhaust obstruction. They are a ‘honey-comb’ design and you can almost look right through them. The older ‘bead’ type could get obstructed though. The newer cats are actually less of an obstruction than a muffler.

The odd part about all this CARB sticker nonsense is, the car was “smogged” with non CARB legal parts in place and actually ran cleaner than stock.

Some of the earlier legal replacement parts didn’t have EO/CARB numbers stamped on them. This is a problem for my old truck(have to keep the paperwork). Many performance parts will also make the vehicle run cleaner. The whole CARB thing is really screwy. Do you know that it is not legal to switch a emissions regulated carburetor car over to fuel injection, even though that does significantly reduce emissions and increase gas mileage. It is ‘tampering’ with the existing emissions equipment.

The initial ‘premise’ on how the emissions laws were written, was that the manufacturers could get a cleaner running car than most anyone else. This is contradicted by the fact that there were many advances in the technology that US auto manufacturers declined to put into production. There were people back in the mid/late 1920’s that were building dual overhead cam versions of the Ford model T engine (which is an flathead or L head). Oddly, one of these were “Louis and Arthur Chevrolet”, called the “Motel T Ford Frontenac”. Others were Jack Gallivan (Model T Gallivan), Harry Miller.

It took the Japanese producing overhead cam and fuel injected engines across their models lines, for technology to be placed into production by the US manufacturers. The US manufacturers ignored the German cars (which also had the tech) because they considered them ‘fringe/specialty/luxury’ cars. (Mercedes Benz was using OHC in the late 20’s, early 30’s)

[ucodegen]

Kinda hard to prove it was the shop’s fault if it doesn’t match up. For instance, I could have had a cat on the car going into the shop and taken the cat off after passing. (not that I would do that).

The newer catalytic converters do not create an exhaust obstruction. They are a ‘honey-comb’ design and you can almost look right through them. The older ‘bead’ type could get obstructed though. The newer cats are actually less of an obstruction than a muffler.

The odd part about all this CARB sticker nonsense is, the car was “smogged” with non CARB legal parts in place and actually ran cleaner than stock.

Some of the earlier legal replacement parts didn’t have EO/CARB numbers stamped on them. This is a problem for my old truck(have to keep the paperwork). Many performance parts will also make the vehicle run cleaner. The whole CARB thing is really screwy. Do you know that it is not legal to switch a emissions regulated carburetor car over to fuel injection, even though that does significantly reduce emissions and increase gas mileage. It is ‘tampering’ with the existing emissions equipment.

The initial ‘premise’ on how the emissions laws were written, was that the manufacturers could get a cleaner running car than most anyone else. This is contradicted by the fact that there were many advances in the technology that US auto manufacturers declined to put into production. There were people back in the mid/late 1920’s that were building dual overhead cam versions of the Ford model T engine (which is an flathead or L head). Oddly, one of these were “Louis and Arthur Chevrolet”, called the “Motel T Ford Frontenac”. Others were Jack Gallivan (Model T Gallivan), Harry Miller.

It took the Japanese producing overhead cam and fuel injected engines across their models lines, for technology to be placed into production by the US manufacturers. The US manufacturers ignored the German cars (which also had the tech) because they considered them ‘fringe/specialty/luxury’ cars. (Mercedes Benz was using OHC in the late 20’s, early 30’s)

[ucodegen]

Kinda hard to prove it was the shop’s fault if it doesn’t match up. For instance, I could have had a cat on the car going into the shop and taken the cat off after passing. (not that I would do that).

The newer catalytic converters do not create an exhaust obstruction. They are a ‘honey-comb’ design and you can almost look right through them. The older ‘bead’ type could get obstructed though. The newer cats are actually less of an obstruction than a muffler.

The odd part about all this CARB sticker nonsense is, the car was “smogged” with non CARB legal parts in place and actually ran cleaner than stock.

Some of the earlier legal replacement parts didn’t have EO/CARB numbers stamped on them. This is a problem for my old truck(have to keep the paperwork). Many performance parts will also make the vehicle run cleaner. The whole CARB thing is really screwy. Do you know that it is not legal to switch a emissions regulated carburetor car over to fuel injection, even though that does significantly reduce emissions and increase gas mileage. It is ‘tampering’ with the existing emissions equipment.

The initial ‘premise’ on how the emissions laws were written, was that the manufacturers could get a cleaner running car than most anyone else. This is contradicted by the fact that there were many advances in the technology that US auto manufacturers declined to put into production. There were people back in the mid/late 1920’s that were building dual overhead cam versions of the Ford model T engine (which is an flathead or L head). Oddly, one of these were “Louis and Arthur Chevrolet”, called the “Motel T Ford Frontenac”. Others were Jack Gallivan (Model T Gallivan), Harry Miller.

It took the Japanese producing overhead cam and fuel injected engines across their models lines, for technology to be placed into production by the US manufacturers. The US manufacturers ignored the German cars (which also had the tech) because they considered them ‘fringe/specialty/luxury’ cars. (Mercedes Benz was using OHC in the late 20’s, early 30’s)

[ucodegen]

You still end up owning the exact same number of shares but get to deduct the loss based on your higher cost. Socialize losses, privatize profits.

Not exactly accurate. You are not “socializing losses and privatizing profits“. You are taxed on any net gain. In deducting the loss, you are reducing the effective basis, should you pick up the same stock issue after wash date. With the reduced basis, you have the potential of a larger gain that you will be taxed at.

For example:
Buy stock A 1000sh @ $11/sh – cost $500
Stock A tanks, to $0.50/sh – current value $500, paid $11,000
Sell A, take loss of $10,500.
Wait 31 days.
Buy back 1000 sh of A at $0.50 – cost $500.
Stock A goes back to $11/sh and you sell – $11,000
After selling, you have a gain of $10,500 – which is precisely offset by your loss of the same amount. Net taxable for the whole thing is $0 – which would be the same result as if you just held the stock over the whole period and sold when it got back to $11/sh.

[ucodegen]

You still end up owning the exact same number of shares but get to deduct the loss based on your higher cost. Socialize losses, privatize profits.

Not exactly accurate. You are not “socializing losses and privatizing profits“. You are taxed on any net gain. In deducting the loss, you are reducing the effective basis, should you pick up the same stock issue after wash date. With the reduced basis, you have the potential of a larger gain that you will be taxed at.

For example:
Buy stock A 1000sh @ $11/sh – cost $500
Stock A tanks, to $0.50/sh – current value $500, paid $11,000
Sell A, take loss of $10,500.
Wait 31 days.
Buy back 1000 sh of A at $0.50 – cost $500.
Stock A goes back to $11/sh and you sell – $11,000
After selling, you have a gain of $10,500 – which is precisely offset by your loss of the same amount. Net taxable for the whole thing is $0 – which would be the same result as if you just held the stock over the whole period and sold when it got back to $11/sh.

[ucodegen]

You still end up owning the exact same number of shares but get to deduct the loss based on your higher cost. Socialize losses, privatize profits.

Not exactly accurate. You are not “socializing losses and privatizing profits“. You are taxed on any net gain. In deducting the loss, you are reducing the effective basis, should you pick up the same stock issue after wash date. With the reduced basis, you have the potential of a larger gain that you will be taxed at.

For example:
Buy stock A 1000sh @ $11/sh – cost $500
Stock A tanks, to $0.50/sh – current value $500, paid $11,000
Sell A, take loss of $10,500.
Wait 31 days.
Buy back 1000 sh of A at $0.50 – cost $500.
Stock A goes back to $11/sh and you sell – $11,000
After selling, you have a gain of $10,500 – which is precisely offset by your loss of the same amount. Net taxable for the whole thing is $0 – which would be the same result as if you just held the stock over the whole period and sold when it got back to $11/sh.

[ucodegen]

You still end up owning the exact same number of shares but get to deduct the loss based on your higher cost. Socialize losses, privatize profits.

Not exactly accurate. You are not “socializing losses and privatizing profits“. You are taxed on any net gain. In deducting the loss, you are reducing the effective basis, should you pick up the same stock issue after wash date. With the reduced basis, you have the potential of a larger gain that you will be taxed at.

For example:
Buy stock A 1000sh @ $11/sh – cost $500
Stock A tanks, to $0.50/sh – current value $500, paid $11,000
Sell A, take loss of $10,500.
Wait 31 days.
Buy back 1000 sh of A at $0.50 – cost $500.
Stock A goes back to $11/sh and you sell – $11,000
After selling, you have a gain of $10,500 – which is precisely offset by your loss of the same amount. Net taxable for the whole thing is $0 – which would be the same result as if you just held the stock over the whole period and sold when it got back to $11/sh.

[ucodegen]

You still end up owning the exact same number of shares but get to deduct the loss based on your higher cost. Socialize losses, privatize profits.

Not exactly accurate. You are not “socializing losses and privatizing profits“. You are taxed on any net gain. In deducting the loss, you are reducing the effective basis, should you pick up the same stock issue after wash date. With the reduced basis, you have the potential of a larger gain that you will be taxed at.

For example:
Buy stock A 1000sh @ $11/sh – cost $500
Stock A tanks, to $0.50/sh – current value $500, paid $11,000
Sell A, take loss of $10,500.
Wait 31 days.
Buy back 1000 sh of A at $0.50 – cost $500.
Stock A goes back to $11/sh and you sell – $11,000
After selling, you have a gain of $10,500 – which is precisely offset by your loss of the same amount. Net taxable for the whole thing is $0 – which would be the same result as if you just held the stock over the whole period and sold when it got back to $11/sh.

[ucodegen]

The article fails to indicate who underwrote the CDSs for the CDOs that Magnetar created. If the underwriter of the CDSs decided to charge a lot for the underwriting or refused to underwrite the trash, Magnetar would have imploded from the crap they created.

FYI:
The way you bet against a basket of mortgages is to form a CDO of them and then to take out a CDS on the basket as well. The CDS insures against the default. After you have the CDS, you sell off the CDO, retaining the CDS.

CDS = Credit Default Swap.
CDO = Collateralized Debt Obligation.

A CDS is like a ‘put’ on the value of the CDO – or an insurance policy against the loss in principal.

[ucodegen]

The article fails to indicate who underwrote the CDSs for the CDOs that Magnetar created. If the underwriter of the CDSs decided to charge a lot for the underwriting or refused to underwrite the trash, Magnetar would have imploded from the crap they created.

FYI:
The way you bet against a basket of mortgages is to form a CDO of them and then to take out a CDS on the basket as well. The CDS insures against the default. After you have the CDS, you sell off the CDO, retaining the CDS.

CDS = Credit Default Swap.
CDO = Collateralized Debt Obligation.

A CDS is like a ‘put’ on the value of the CDO – or an insurance policy against the loss in principal.

[Author]

Posts