Dentists and Oreos

Anyone that takes care of their teeth will soon realize a semi-annual trip to the dentist is well worth the trouble.  Just like automobiles, our teeth will last longer and stay in better shape with a little preventative maintenance.

If you wait until your car is smoking and overheated before taking it in for service chances are it is going to cost you a lot more in the end.  Much in the same way if you wait to go to the dentist only after you have a sore tooth or are in extreme pain, it stands to reason not only is it going to cost more and be more painful, but you very well may end up losing some of your teeth in the process.

Therefore, for the vast majority of my life I have visited the dentist twice per year whether I felt I needed it or not.  There was a period in my early 20s where I skipped a few years, but I soon realized what a mistake that was after having to play catch-up for a few years which included numerous cavities being filled, as well as a root canal complete with crown.  After that lesson learned, I now attend my dental appointments religiously* and haven't missed one in years.  

* Perhaps "religiously" isn't an accurate descriptor since I'm unaware of any religion which only requires two visits a year, but I digress.

So what is the point of all this besides me rambling on about a random subject?  Well, my point is it seems like there is a routine to all of my dentist appointments.  First, I go to the dentist and they determine if we need any x-rays this time around.  If so we get those taken care of right away, but if not they skip ahead and clean my teeth, check for any cavities (which I haven't had in well over a decade), hand me a few samples of toothpaste or a new toothbrush, and that's that.  I schedule an appointment for six months down the road, and I head out the door feeling relieved that I somehow managed to dodge the cavity bullet one more time.

However, inevitably somewhere before or after the cleaning my dental hygienist will ask me if I have been flossing.  I'm smart enough to know they can probably tell, so I don't bother to lie about it and always admit that no... I don't floss.  I typically get complimented on my brushing and am always told I have nice teeth (from the perspective of a dentist or hygienist at least) but they will usually tell me that I need to floss in order to get all of the plaque from between the teeth, yadda, yadda, yadda.  The lecture doesn't last long primarily because they probably give the same speech 15 times a day and know it likely won't do any good, but I listen anyway as the hygienist hands me a package of floss as if my lack of flossing was simply due to a matter of supply and demand.

This probably explains why I have six or eight packages of floss at home - because they give me a new one every six months and I can't seem to use them up as fast as they restock my supply.  So typically after each dentist appointment I decide now is the time I'm going to start flossing.  The next evening I bust out the floss and go between each and every tooth to the best of my ability.  The day after that I floss again, but maybe with a little less vigor and taking a little less time to do a perfect job.  A day after that and I'm down to speed flossing.

Soon enough - less than a week after my dental cleaning, I stop flossing altogether.  I know I should, but it just seems like such a hassle.  I brush my teeth so flossing just seems like it should be "extra".  As the months pass, flossing isn't even considered nor do I feel any guilt about skipping it, but next thing you know I flip the page on a calendar and there I see it... the date of my next dentist appointment.

Drat.  I know I've been slacking, and now I've got less than two weeks before I see the dentist again.  So obviously now is the time to start flossing with the hopes I can make up for the last six months in a matter of 10-14 days.  Then, the night before the big appointment I go all out.  I brush my teeth for longer than I typically would ensuring I cover each and ever side of each tooth as best as I can.  I floss with regular floss and then make a second pass with a floss pick to ensure I didn't miss anything.  I'll even go a step further and rinse with some mouthwash to get any remaining "stuff" out of my mouth and send it down the drain.

This all got me thinking one day.  Why do we always prepare for the dentist as if we are cramming for a mid-term Biology Exam?  Do we really think one or two good brushings and a few days of flossing is going to make up for six months of neglect?  Do we honestly think the hygienist won't notice that we haven't been doing as much as we should be to take care of our teeth?

When you really think about it, why should we try to impress our dentists and hygienists?  They charge the same amount for a cleaning whether my teeth are clean or if they haven't been brushed for three years, so maybe I should make them work for it a little.

So how about instead of preparing for my cleaning as if I was heading out to a Senior Prom, I decide to get my money's worth out of them by eating a mixture of peanuts, caramel, and Oreos 15 minutes before my actual cleaning?  Its sort of like driving your car through a gigantic puddle right before you take it to the car wash - it isn't going to help anything, but it surely makes the before and after a whole lot more impressive.

Is that wrong?

Vanity

Have you ever noticed how people react to someone who has had plastic surgery?  In casual conversation, I often hear people say how they would never do that or how they think it is foolish or how it is superficial etc.  I've also often heard the comments about how people should just be happy with what God gave them, but in reality isn't this just judging others for their life choices?

The thing is, what someone else does with their body has no impact upon me or my life.  If Joan Rivers wishes to have 40 different cosmetic procedures or if a guy down the street decides he wants a nose job, why should I care?

The simple truth is, most people are superficial in some way.  While some may judge someone for a tummy tuck, some breast implants, or a facelift, those very same people are comfortable with dying their hair, sitting under a tanning lamp for that perfect "glow", whitening their teeth, or wearing colored contact lenses.  So where do we draw the line on what is acceptable and what isn't?

Should we really just settle for what God gave us, or should we attempt to "improve" upon it?  God gave me crooked teeth, but I was thankful a dentist was able to give me invisalign aligners to straighten them.  God also gave me poor vision, and although I could have settled for glasses or contact lenses, I opted for LASIK surgery instead.  In the past, I have also paid for teeth whitening, tanning booths, and even highlights in my hair (no metrosexual jokes required).
So is it ok for people to get laser surgery or to straighten their teeth, but not ok for get a nosejob or a brow lift?  Is sitting under a tanning booth perfectly fine and getting hair extensions societally acceptable while hair plugs for a man or liposuction for a woman is somehow considered crossing the line?

Actually, taken a step further - what is the purpose of a pierced ear or a tattoo?  Both are forms of body modification and both (in our culture at least) are done for primarily cosmetic reasons. Personally, it all seems a little hypocritical... not to mention completely arbitrary.

As far as I'm concerned what someone does with their body is entirely up to them.  If they can afford it or if they make it a priority in their lives because they feel it will help them feel better about themselves I could care less.  Obviously if they make their kids eat oatmeal three times a day to save up for a cosmetic procedure that is a different issue altogether, but for the most part I really don't understand why someone cares what another person chooses to do with his or her body.

The fact is, our society (like it or not) is focused upon beauty and physical attractiveness, so I completely understand in this modern world why some people are so determined to have cosmetic procedures.  As children we were always told it is what is in the inside of a person that counts, but as Jim Carrey in the film "Liar Liar" so truthfully stated... "That's just something ugly people say".

I realize the film was a comedy, but you have to admit there is some truth in those words no matter how much we might like to think otherwise.

Solutions to the Mortgage Crisis

Stop right here if you are expecting some humorous post or random observation about life because this isn't it.  If you like to talk economics or discuss the current state of our economy... then by all means read on.

Obviously I don't get paid to write the occasional (and in my humble opinion sometimes witty) blog post, so I'm forced to be like most people have have a day job.  In my case, I work in the financial services industry and that introduces me to a lot of information relating to the economy.  Even though I work for a large company that has tentacles in practically every market sector imaginable, I actually do not have any connection with the mortgage industry.

However, for some strange reason the mortgage industry interests me, so from time to time I will find myself researching various trends, analyzing data, and scouring over the opinions of real experts, self-proclaimed experts, and people who don't have a clue about anything but yet are continually quoted in newspapers and shown on cable news networks.

With that said, a recent Associated Press article caught my eye regarding foreclosure mediation. The actual article written by Oskar Garcia can be found here (or about 110 other websites which have linked to the AP story).  The article included a statement attributed to UNLV economics professor Nasser Daneshvary which read that he "recommended that banks consider short-selling homes to current homeowners, and create modifications that include reductions in principal".

I've heard these types of arguments in the past, but I find some serious flaws in this logic.  Therefore, rather than rolling my eyes or attempting to speak about the issue to those around me (who would likely not share my interest in economics) I decided to simply respond to Professor Daneshvary directly.  A quick search online found me the University faculty listing, and I was able to capture his email address.

The following is the email I sent (I tend to get a little verbose in such communications):

Professor Daneshvary,

I read with interest your comments in a recent Associated Press article about Nevada's Foreclosure issues. You were quoted as suggesting "that banks consider short-selling homes to current homeowners, and create modifications that include reductions in principal." 

At first glace that would appear to be a feasible solution. It would allow families to stay in their homes, reduce the chance for neighborhood blight, stabilize and perhaps even improve the housing market by reducing the steady stream (flood) of foreclosures, and help prevent foreclosures from hitting borrower's credit reports.

However, I believe there are a lot of negatives to this idea as well. First, if banks begin short-selling homes to current homeowners, anyone with an underwater mortgage will soon realize it is in their best interests to miss a few payments. Due to income requirements this won't be feasible for some, but for those people who are renting out rooms or working second jobs or collecting rent from a live-in partner in order to make the mortgage payments it is a distinct possibility. Anyone who has suffered an income loss or a change in financial condition since the loan origination (whether they can afford the mortgage or not) would soon be in line to get what they perceive as "their share".

Second, if you create modifications to reduce principal, who should suffer the loss? Should the bank be forced to modify a $300,000 mortgage down to $220,000 and absorb the gap of $80,000 just to help a homeowner stay in their home? On what level would that type of action be sustainable? The losses to the banks would soon be so high from people purposefully missing payments in order to get into these types of programs that the cost to obtain a new mortgage would need to be increased in order to compensate. That in turn would drive down demand for housing and prolong the economic crisis.

I fail to see this as a moral issue for the banks or investors because when the housing market was booming and people were buying homes only to sell them at twice the price a few years later - do you recall any of these fortunate homeowners splitting the proceeds with the bank? Not likely. If modifications to principal are put in place now and the housing market recovers in a few years, that same $220,000 house could then be $325,000. Do you believe homeowners in this situation will go back to the bank and repay the portion of their original mortgage which was modified? If human history has taught us anything, the answer is a unequivocal no.

I fully realize people question why a bank would foreclose on a property and sell it at auction to recoup less than they would have if the simply modified the mortgage, but it would seem they are willing to accept some short term loss in order to prevent a much longer term wave of losses. Will there be cases of fraud where a friend or family member buys the home and re-sells it to the current homeowner at a reduced price? Yes, but fraud happens in almost ever scenario and can never be totally contained.

I won't claim to have all of the answers, and I understand greed on both the part of the banks as well as homeowners is one of the primary factors that led us down this road, but principle modifications and short sales to current homeowners would like not solve the issue, especially in those cases where a homeowner is able to make a payment but chooses not to because they fear their investment has lost value and may never return.

Like it or not, it would seem the current system of foreclosure and auction may very well be the best possible solution for both parties. One of the biggest mistakes made in this country is when our Federal Government, along with the banks and investment houses, attempted to tell everyone that owning a home is the American Dream. The reality is, some people are more well suited to renting. Unfortunately that is something we forgot during the boom years where low or no down payments were the norm or where interest only mortgages and adjustable rate mortgages seemed to be typical.  

Although I tend to lean towards a free market, it would seem in this case that some regulation is most certainly needed. Elimination of 30 year mortgages in favor of 10, 15, and 20 years would be a start, as would banning interest only mortgages and zero down payment options in favor of the older established threshold of requiring 20% down. Will this prevent some people from owning a home? Certainly, but as soon as we get away from the mindset that everyone needs to own a home, the sooner we will be able to sustain a well-balanced home market and economy.

Sincerely,

Craig [redacted]

Of course I did send the email with my last name (I've redacted it here because based upon the number of pageviews my blog receives I'd rather keep some sense of anonymity), and I even included a disclaimer message telling Professor Daneshvary that I work in the financial services industry although I clarified I have no connect to the mortgage division and am speaking from my own personal viewpoint rather than that of my employer (it is always wise to be transparent about such things, especially if my employer would ever hear about it).

Now obviously I understand there are differing viewpoints on the issue and not everyone will agree with me.  I also agree that a professor from the University of Nevada Las Vegas probably has more important things to do with his time than respond to a random person he has never met (and likely never will) who is not a UNLV alumni, is not a current student, is not a member of the media, and isn't even a fellow economist. 

So imagine my surprise when less than 24 hours from me sending my email that I received a response.  Below is the response I received from Professor Daneshvary:

Dear Mr. [redacted],

First, thank you for talking time to give me feedback and expressing your opinion. I have to say that I agree almost with all of your points, particularly the recommendations for future corrections (the last paragraph). If we would have followed the “traditional” way of doing business, we would have not been in this situation to begin with.

To start with, the quotation by the Associated Press is not a complete statement that I made. I followed the statement "that banks consider short-selling homes to current homeowners, and create modifications that include reductions in principal" with saying “in return for a share of future price appreciation.” This is one of the points that you raised.

I am an economist with a firm foundation on incentive-based behavior and opportunity costs. My comments and conclusions are based on the fact that, given current situation, what type of solutions may work better. The decline in home values has gotten to the point that individuals doing strategic defaults. Even, professionals with 300K pay check are asking me why I should keep repaying the 800K loan over my life time while the value of my home is only 400K. The traditional stigma that was associated with foreclosure and bankruptcy are not there anymore. Foreclosing a home does not have the long term credit/financial effect that it use to have for homeowners. There are homeowners who believe so many people are defaulting, resulting enough people with bad credit in the near future. Thus, obtaining a loan would not be an issue.

I am not saying these arguments/behaviors are right or moral. I am saying our system (bad policies combined with the lack of appropriate regulations) during the 2000s created a situation that needs to be taken care of before it completely destroys household asset accumulation.

Again, thank you for taking time to communicate with me.

Best regards.
Nasser Daneshvary
Professor of Economics and Beam Research Fellow
Director of Lied Institute for Real Estate Studies
College of Business
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
4505 Maryland Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89154
(702) [redacted] (Assistant)
(702) [redacted](Direct)
(702) [redacted](fax)

 Now it goes without saying that I was somewhat shocked to get a response at all much less one as detailed and informative as what I did.  As it seems, the good professor and I actually share many of the same viewpoints, although I initially thought we had opposing views due to nothing other than an incomplete statement which could arguably be considered out of context.

I sent the professor another message shortly before drafting this blog post although it was more of a thank-you rather than a message intended to garner further discussion. 

So I have learned several things here.  First, always accept statements attributed to people with a certain amount of reservation - especially when they aren't direct quotations.  Second, never be afraid to voice your opinion on an issue even if you don't expect a response.  Finally, always be polite - you never know when someone might think what you have to say is worthy of their time.

The funny thing is, I have actually sent state level (not federal level mind you) politicians from my local district a couple of emails in the past and never received so much as an acknowledgment, so maybe economists are just more polite and courteous than politicians.  That really doesn't seem like much of a stretch, and I doubt it would surprise anyone.

So what is the point of all of this?  Who really knows - I just found it all very interesting and exciting at the same time.  What can I say... some people get excited when they can provoke a "tweet" from a celebrity or if they can capture the attention of an athlete from the sidelines whereas I get excited simply by a response from an economist from a large and well-respected University.

Nobody ever claimed I was 100% normal.

Where Do All of the Ice Scrapers Go?

Around this time of each year, those of us unfortunate lucky enough to live in the Midwest find ourselves in need of an ice scraper.  I realize such an item probably isn't commonly found in Southern California or Arizona or Florida or anywhere else that Social Security payees tend to congregate, but here in South Dakota it is a given that each and every car on the road during the months of October or November through February (and sometimes into early May) will have at least one ice scraping device readily available.


However, when the Spring thaw rolls around each year, we tend to forget about these valuable pieces of plastic as they are pushed under seats, stuffed into glove boxes, retired to trunks, or perhaps even moved into a box full of hats and gloves which is put into storage for another year.


The real question is - when winter rolls around again and we find ourselves in the need of an ice scraper, do you think we could actually find it?  This leads me to believe the companies who manufacture ice scrapers do so with biodegradable plastic with no more than a seven month shelf life.  Either that or snow has some type of a negative effect upon long term memory... which might actually make more sense.


I cannot even begin to guess how many ice scrapers I have purchased throughout my lifetime, but I'd be willing to bet I average at least one a year.  At one point I thought I was getting ahead of the game by purchasing two when they were on clearance in the spring with the thought that surely one of them should be available for that first snowfall the following season.  However, as luck would have it, when the first snowfall came I had to resort to using an old CD to scrape the snow off the windshield as I mutter some choice words under my breath and wonder what I did with my ice scrapers.  Don't worry about the CD though... it was a mix CD I created myself and was already scratched bad enough that it really didn't matter.  


Although come to think of it perhaps I should place a Vanilla Ice CD in my car for just such an occasion... scraping a windshield with a CD containing a song entitled "Ice Ice Baby" seems rather fitting.  Then again on second thought, nothing really justifies owning a Vanilla Ice CD, so scratch that idea.


In any case, once again I find myself at Target choosing from the plethora of ice scrapers they have available.  From experience I have learned what works and what merely looks like it works, and I have also found that there really hasn't been anything innovative from the ice scraping community in decades.  Yes we have all seen the ice scrapers that plug into the 12V outlet and try to melt the snow and ice (they don't work) and we have seen the type with the brass blade that is supposed to work better than plastic (not really).  We have also seen the scrapers that come with their own gloves (which makes sense for those days where it is warm enough you don't already have gloves on, but cold enough to still have snow on your car (never), and we have seen scrapers with brushes and extension wands and ice chippers and built-in flashlights and all types of gimmicky attachments, but at the end of the day they rarely work any better than the $1.99 plastic ice scraper sold at almost any convenience store coupled with a coat sleeve used to brush off the fluffy stuff.


Yes there will be swearing when some snow finds its way up the sleeve, and more choice words when we are back in the vehicle and realize even after all that scraping the windshield wipers are still stuck to the glass.  Of course my personal favorite is when you spend ten minutes scraping windows to where they look great right up until the point you start moving forward at anything greater than seven mph and all of the snow from the hood decides it now prefers the windshield.  This in turn causes you to hit the brakes and do the "ice ostrich" move where you bob your head around looking for any area of six square inches or more of clear glass through which you can (quite dangerously) navigate the city streets until the defroster kicks in!


Come to think of it, I think 80% of the reason those remote car starters are so popular in this part of the country is because people just got tired of looking for their ice scrapers.  It is much easier to just hit a button 15 minutes before you want to go somewhere rather than contemplating where that little piece of plastic disappeared to.  Yes even a cheap remote starter is probably in excess of $200 and yes that will probably buy decades worth of ice-scrapers, but if you add up all the hours saved by not having to search for the scraper, then maybe the return on your investment starts to pay off.


The truth is I'm pretty sure I know where all the missing ice scrapers go.  The same gremlin that seems to steal just one sock out of the dryer also has an affinity for ice scrapers, and thus he steals them when we aren't looking.  Rest assured somewhere out there is a huge pile of ice scrapers all tucked neatly away in socks to keep them clean, dry, and warm.

Are You a Carrot, an Egg or a Coffee Bean?

I was recently sent this story about how different people react to life's challenges, and I thought it was interesting enough to warrant sharing:

A young woman went to her mother and told her about her life and how things were so hard for her. She did not know how she was going to make it and wanted to give up. She was tired of fighting and struggling. It seemed as one problem was solved, a new one arose.

Her mother took her to the kitchen. She filled three pots with water and placed each on a high fire. Soon the pots came to a boil. In the first, she placed carrots, in the second she placed eggs, and in the last she placed ground coffee beans. She let them sit and boil; without saying a word.

In about twenty minutes she turned off the burners. She fished the carrots out and placed them in a bowl. She pulled the eggs out and placed them in a bowl. Then she ladled the coffee out and placed it in a bowl.

Turning to her daughter, she asked, "Tell me what you see."

 "Carrots, eggs, and coffee," she replied.

 Her mother brought her closer and asked her to feel the carrots. She did and noted that they were soft. The mother then asked the daughter to take an egg and break it. After pulling off the shell, she observed the hard-boiled egg.

Finally, the mother asked the daughter to sip the coffee. The daughter smiled as she tasted its rich aroma. The daughter then asked, "What does it mean, Mother?"

Her mother explained that each of these objects had faced the same adversity: boiling water. Each reacted differently. The carrots went in strong, hard, and unrelenting. However, after being subjected to the boiling water, they softened and became weak. The egg had been fragile. Its thin outer shell had protected its liquid interior, but after sitting in the boiling water, its inside became hardened. The ground coffee beans were unique, however. After they were in the boiling water, they had changed the water.

"Which are you?" she asked her daughter. "When adversity knocks on your door, how do you respond? Are you a carrot, an egg or a coffee bean?

Think of this: Which am I? Am I the carrot that seems strong, but with pain and adversity do I wilt and become soft and lose my strength?

Am I the egg that starts with a malleable heart, but changes with the heat? Did I have a fluid spirit, but after a death, a breakup, a financial hardship or some other trial, have I become hardened and stiff? Does my shell look the same, but on the inside am I bitter and tough with a stiff spirit and hardened heart?

Or am I like the coffee bean? The bean actually changes the hot water, the very circumstance that brings the pain. When the water gets hot, it releases the fragrance and flavor. If you are like the bean, when things are at their worst, you get better and change the situation around you. When the hour is the darkest and trials are their greatest, do you elevate yourself to another level?

How do you handle adversity? Are you a carrot, an egg or a coffee bean?

May you have enough happiness to make you sweet, enough trials to make you strong, enough sorrow to keep you human, and enough hope to make you happy. That's because ... the happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything; they just make the most of everything that comes their way.

I realize analogies like this are simply clever ways to make a point, although whether they have any lasting effect is left entirely up to the reader. Personally I'm not a huge proponent of self-help remedies or catchy anecdotes as I tend to believe people are typically set on their respective paths and can only change when they decide to do so rather than on the advice from another or based upon a witty analogy or bumper sticker catch phrase. Although I have no science, statistics, or empirical evidence to support my theory, I would guess real significant personal change only occurs in approximately one of around a thousand people.

I am reluctant to say people can't change, but rather deep down I'm not sure people really want to change. I think if we are honest with ourselves, most of us would likely admit we would prefer others to adapt to us rather than us changing to fulfill some societal obligation.

I suppose I could draft my own analogy using objects tossed out off of a 5,000 foot cliff above jagged, razor-sharp rocks in the middle of a remote landscape. So what is the difference between a bowling ball, a helium balloon, and a pair of hiking boots?

If you throw all three of these objects over the edge of the cliff, they all respond differently. If you throw the bowling ball, it will succumb to the oppressive force of gravity and fall until it hits the rocks at the bottom of the cliff. Most likely the bowling ball will fracture or perhaps even break into pieces, and it will never again be used for its intended purpose. If you release the balloon, it will fight against the force of gravity and sail into the sky where wind currents will determine its path, and although it will eventually return to earth it will most likely do so in a safer location and at a much more gentle rate of descent. The balloon's path is unpredictable even if we believe we know the end result. However if you throw the hiking boots, they will bounce down the face of the cliff and land at the bottom out of view. They will likely be separated from one another and most likely will never be seen again.

So what is the difference between these three objects? Well when forced to go one direction, the bowling ball simply followed a path which guaranteed a disastrous ending. On the other hand the balloon responded differently and took its own unpredictable path keeping it safe from immediate harm. The hiking boots responded much in the same way as the bowling ball, and although this might not seem like an important differentiation to most people, to the guy who just tossed his hiking boots over the side of a 5,000 foot cliff this is a rather important event, because now this idiot has to continue his hike barefoot.

So which are you... a bowling ball, a balloon, or a pair of hiking boots once worn by a moron?