Re your editorial “One bright sign emerges in a gloomy housing market” (May 29) and the general dismay about falling real-estate prices and rising gasoline prices: What principle of economics suggests that markets are working well when the price of one asset (say, housing) rises, but not when the price of another asset (say, petroleum) rises?  What principle of ethics dictates that owners of one asset (say, housing) are entitled to capital gains and to enjoy these gains however large they might be, but that owners of another asset (say, petroleum) are not so entitled to their gains?

Finally, what moral precept advises us, in the case of petroleum products, to sympathize with buyers and demonize sellers, and in the case of housing, to ignore buyers and sympathize with sellers?

We see the sad faces of the people moving out, but we don’t as often see the happy faces of the new homeowners moving in. Nevertheless, those happy faces are out there, and we should not discount them.

All I will add is that this foreclosure business has got me crazy. It is not uncommon to see economists recommending $100 billion bailouts or more. To take a purely utilitarian approach here, is that the best use of $100 billion? Should government worry about keeping people in homes they never should have been in, when I am bombarded by calls for funding for transportation infrastructure, health care for children, educational reform, etc.?