Crash Crash Crash !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

blisk3

chucky wrote: »

not sure why i'm bothering here but i'll give it a go...

you've taken a YoY graph to tell me house prices have falling - statistics doesn't seem to be your strong point does it.

if anything the YoY graph tells us more about about the price rises 12 months ago than now

You don't have to post here, you don't have to bother, because you are an idiot.

That graph goes up to Nov 2010.

Statistics obviously doesn't seem to be your strong point in understanding the different house price indexes & building pressures on economy & housing market.

If you can't string 2 words together or make a worthwhile effort, DON'T BOTHER !

chucky

blisk3 wrote: »

You don't have to post here, you don't have to bother, because you are an idiot.

That graph goes up to Nov 2010.

Statistics obviously doesn't seem to be your strong point in understanding the different house price indexes & building pressures on economy & housing market.

If you can't string 2 words together or make a worthwhile effort, DON'T BOTHER !

see you didn't understand, i knew i shouldn't have bothered...

i post here because it entertains me to see posts from 'people' lke you. i can't wait for blisk4

i like the attitude though you do try hard, never say die!!

julieq

OK, since we're running duplicate threads, here's the analysis from the other one. And just to add that the most significant pressure on house prices is the long term supply/demand imbalance between household creation and homebuilding, not transient effects due to smallscale reductions in public sector employment (many of which will be absorbed by private sector growth anyway). Blisk, I'm by no means sure you understand this to the degree you think you do, but hey ho, a bit of oversize bold helvetica and some misplaced bravado will always paper over any fundamental misconceptions

It's posturing. There's only one solution, which is to build more homes. And government policy is also to give residents more control over home building in their areas, which will inevitably mean that less homes will be built because of Nimbyism.

Given the massive shortfall between household creation and home building, there's only one place the cost of accomodation can go. This statement is also feeding the myth that investment in property is a driver of prices. All evidence says that that isn't true. It's purely a supply and demand issue. The only reason we're seeing modest falls now is because of mortgage rationing, and that's also contrary to government policy in today's statement, as they claim to want general home ownership - impossible unless people can get mortgages.

Over 5-10 years, expect the following to happen:

1) Shift towards urban living in larger blocks of flats. It's easier to get planning permission for brownfield developments and anyone doing that will want to maximise the return (=high density). If you look at the other places where building is constrained and prices are high (Japan, Hong Kong, New York are good examples) that is the model that's used.
2) Conversion of 3 and 4 bedroom houses into flats
3) Shift from freehold to leasehold tenure, probably on a 50 year basis on all properties (including those traditionally freehold). Gives some degree of flexibility and security of tenure over rental, and allows property to be retained by the owners and passed on.
4) Freehold out of the reach of anyone not already on the ladder, and a split between property owning and non-property owning classes (i.e. the historical norm).

It's not a particularly appealing future, but if you want to get it changed, don't sit around and hope for a price crash, lobby your MP for release of greenfield sites for building and an easier planning process for homebuilders.

blisk3

chucky wrote: »

see you didn't understand, i knew i shouldn't have bothered...

i post here because it entertains me to see posts from 'people' lke you. i can't wait for blisk4

i like the attitude though you do try hard, never say die!!

You've got nothing useful to say, that's why you post non-posts.

Non-post not required.

blisk3

julieq wrote: »

OK, since we're running duplicate threads, here's the analysis from the other one. And just to add that the most significant pressure on house prices is the long term supply/demand imbalance between household creation and homebuilding, not transient effects due to smallscale reductions in public sector employment (many of which will be absorbed by private sector growth anyway). Blisk, I'm by no means sure you understand this to the degree you think you do, but hey ho, a bit of oversize bold helvetica and some misplaced bravado will always paper over any fundamental misconceptions

It's posturing. There's only one solution, which is to build more homes. And government policy is also to give residents more control over home building in their areas, which will inevitably mean that less homes will be built because of Nimbyism.

Given the massive shortfall between household creation and home building, there's only one place the cost of accomodation can go. This statement is also feeding the myth that investment in property is a driver of prices. All evidence says that that isn't true. It's purely a supply and demand issue. The only reason we're seeing modest falls now is because of mortgage rationing, and that's also contrary to government policy in today's statement, as they claim to want general home ownership - impossible unless people can get mortgages.

Over 5-10 years, expect the following to happen:

1) Shift towards urban living in larger blocks of flats. It's easier to get planning permission for brownfield developments and anyone doing that will want to maximise the return (=high density). If you look at the other places where building is constrained and prices are high (Japan, Hong Kong, New York are good examples) that is the model that's used.
2) Conversion of 3 and 4 bedroom houses into flats
3) Shift from freehold to leasehold tenure, probably on a 50 year basis on all properties (including those traditionally freehold). Gives some degree of flexibility and security of tenure over rental, and allows property to be retained by the owners and passed on.
4) Freehold out of the reach of anyone not already on the ladder, and a split between property owning and non-property owning classes (i.e. the historical norm).

It's not a particularly appealing future, but if you want to get it changed, don't sit around and hope for a price crash, lobby your MP for release of greenfield sites for building and an easier planning process for homebuilders.

Well that's all sorted then. :rotfl:
Naive.

You haven't addressed the past which created the present.

But, house prices are still falling.

And, this is not any thread, this is the one & only Crash Crash Crash !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! thread.

chucky

blisk3 wrote: »

Well that's all sorted then. :rotfl:
Naive.

You haven't addressed the past which created the present.

But, house prices are still falling.

And, this is not any thread, this is the one & only Crash Crash Crash !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! thread.

jeez... this must be one of the better arguments for house prices crashing

sabretoothtigger

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Why would people listen to you know when you got it so spectacularly wrong 2 years ago? Your excellent advice would have cost someone tens of thousands of pounds so far.

Winston_Churchill wrote:

Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm. -

This sums up current economic policy to me.
They are continually on the cusp of success, until its absolutely obvious in every way and their efforts amount to nil its all a potential success

pwllbwdr

blisk3 wrote: »

And, this is not any thread, this is the one & only Crash Crash Crash !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! thread.

From 2 years ago. Remind me where house prices sit now in comparison with then?

twadge_face

pwllbwdr wrote: »

From 2 years ago. Remind me where house prices sit now in comparison with then?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=house+price+comparison+2008+2010 [top link]

That first site tracks a 25% drop, then 7% back up from their low.

And going forward the graph suggests the gentlest inflation, probably just because it's rude to genuinely propose stagnation, over the next five years, and definitely not getting back to their 2007 peak in that timeframe.

EDIT: link fail

pwllbwdr

Good old rewired! Thanking you for posting a link which doesn't work.