If someone bought an expensive house with little to no money as a down payment, took out an interest only loan with a teser rate that is now coming due, if that person now has to move, aren't we really talking about someone who just rented a house they probably couldn't afford in the first place? The banks who made this loan knew what they were getting in the first place with this type of investment risk, they are not entitled to any kind of bailout. The more unpopular position however is that the "home owner" or really the renter also knew the rules going into the game as well. As a person who really didn't own a home because they had no equity in the property, but was just renting it over the term of the teaser rate, they are no more entitled than the bank to a government bailout. They were a renter. Renters move all the time. This is not the government's business for crying out loud. Let the market sort this out. The only thing government intervention will do is screw up the process and cost us all a lot of money. Anyone want to take that deal?
A unit if energy is a commodity, just like a sack of potatoes. It really does not matter to the consumer the souce a calorie of energy. The market has determined that the most cost effective source of energy is fossil fuel. We can choose to like this reality or not, but at this point in our technoogical development, fossil fuel is still the cheapest, most efficient, and most abundant energy supply for the world's economic and societal needs. When the cost of fossil fuel begins to rise...as the supply starts to dwindle many years into the future or if hyper demand far out paces supply, then an alternative will appear in the market. Until that time, it would be foolish to spend some factor greater than the market cost of energy for our needs. As stated before, energy is a commodity. Paying more for non-fossil fuel would be like paying Five bucks for a Two dollar sack of potatoes. Why would anyone do that?
No comments:
Post a Comment