> It's not just math: you're gambling on what is going to
> happen in the next few years (at least) in complex
> financial markets.
I think you're exaggerating.
When you, as you say, "gamble" -- like at a casino -- your chances of failure are several orders of magnitude higher than if you take out a mortgage like this. I don't think you give people enough credit for managing the uncertainty that they _have to manage anyway_ ...
> Call me a conservative fogey, but I'm not interested in
> potentially gambling away shelter for my family.
Ok, you (and Doug) are conservative fogeys. So what? Please, don't do anything you're uncomfortable with. But to say "it's wrong for me, it's wrong for everyone!" is really a narrow-minded approach. It's clearly not "wrong" for the vast majority of people who take on such loans. In fact, it could easily be said that the creation of these kinds of products[*] have enabled large numbers of people -- who would otherwise not have had the opportunity -- to change their live for themselves and their families in a way they would call positive.
/jordan
[*] By "these kinds of products" I'm including all the various mortgages that don't have 20%-down-30-year-fixed terms. There's a wide variety of them, and I'd be happy to see even more, especially if it means more people can own houses. And by "more people" I mean, of course, poor people.