1.5m homeowners face 'disaster' if house prices keep falling, MPs warned

housesitter

Really2 wrote: »

Why as it got to be mew, not inheritance or hard work and happy in the house they are in. They could be millionairs for all you know the house they live in means nothing.

Perhaps. Perhaps one or two. The vast majority ? Mew.

More could be said about your veiw of material things and jelousy than I could of any of the people you have visited.

Which way do you want to jump with that?


That I can't afford a 42" plasma or I don't see the point when I live in a hell hole (regardless of the fact that CRT's give a better picture)?

That I really want a 4wd monster, or I'd prefer to drive something which doesn't depreciate like a falling rock and I can actually park on my driveway?


It's a bling thing. Look at me and look at what I've got.
If I won the lottery I'd still be driving old rusty pieces of junk in many peoples eyes.

Really2

housesitter wrote: »

Perhaps. Perhaps one or two. The vast majority ? Mew.



Which way do you want to jump with that?


That I can't afford a 42" plasma or I don't see the point when I live in a hell hole (regardless of the fact that CRT's give a better picture)?

That I really want a 4wd monster, or I'd prefer to drive something which doesn't depreciate like a falling rock and I can actually park on my driveway?


It's a bling thing. Look at me and look at what I've got.
If I won the lottery I'd still be driving old rusty pieces of junk in many peoples eyes.

So you answered your own question you would live like if you were rich that is not everyone else is it?

You have a view it does not mean it is correct, just like myself.

PS (LCD gives the sharpest image, lowest energy consumption and does not give of radiation like a CRT.:))

housesitter

Oh I'd have a fast car or two but it wouldn't be what people think is the thing to have.
In that respect I've never kept up with the Jones but I see an awful lot of people who drive around in cars that say more about how they want people to see them than their choice of a practical car.
People don't drive Ferraris becasue it's a good car.

LCD gives the sharpest image given a good signal. It's also very good at showing up artifacts in a MPEG stream ala Digital TV. CRT doesn't have that problem so much, so you can argue it's giving you the better picture.

However, once you start feeding it a HD signal then the LCD wins, mainly becasue it's display is deisgned for the higher resolution.

If you want to compare a CRT against a LCD then go back a few years when both were available and take a look at which is best.

New LCD's are better than most of the CRT's were, but not everyone has a new TV. People also buy cheap LCD's as they are much more readily available as cast off from the quality control of the main line product.

Can we just agree that plamsas are crap tho?

chucky

housesitter wrote: »

Can we just agree that plamsas are crap tho?

pe-leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese!!!!

damanpunk

housesitter wrote: »

Can we just agree that plamsas are crap tho?

The only thing crap about plasma's is the energy consumption! Even then I'd rather pay the extra £100 a year for the superior picture.

hearts

LilacPixie wrote: »

The biggest concern for me about that article is the CML being unable to guarantee that mortgage companies will not require extra payments from mortgage holders who's LTV goes over the maximum allowed by their current deal. Many people can comfortably manage their mortgage payment but would struggle if asked to produce several thousand pounds to pay down their mortgage.

Not a chance of this happening.

Option 1. Leave well alone and continue to receive the payments.
Option 2. Repossess and lose.

dopester

jenner wrote: »

exactly, i take exception to this myth that people that borrow against their houses are !!!!less and irresponsible. i have already admitted elsewhere that i have borrowed, sometimes it was for other debts built up unecessarily, like holidays, shoes, stuff that i didnt need, and other parts of it was to go back to university, requalify, double glazing and rather large mantanence bills from the managing agent for large works.

I'm sure in another thread you admitted you would have thought twice about MEWing, especially for fancy purchases like shoes, now that it is weighing you down to pay back... and makes the sale of your property difficult.

So myth or not.. you'd be in a better financial position, with more equity in your property, if you hadn't MEWed for a lot of stuff.

chucky

dopester wrote: »

I'm sure in another thread you admitted you would have thought twice about MEWing, especially for fancy purchases like shoes, now that it is weighing you down to pay back... and makes the sale of your property difficult.

So myth or not.. you'd be in a better financial position, with more equity in your property, if you hadn't MEWed for a lot of stuff.

MEWing should not be allowed as easily as it can be done.

If I remember rightly previously, real justification had to be proved for the purpose of the re-mortgage. Now it can be done quite easily, these are one of the controls that need to be out in place.

baby_boomer

It's not a disaster.

It's only a disaster if they lose their jobs.

mewbie_2

Mewing was a great idea by the mortgage / credit companies. Most people (I hope) regard debt with suspicion, something to be avoided. Yet we happily accept a mortgage, twenty odd years of debt, as a necessary evil.

So, by enabling easy mewing, people gained access to a form of credit (debt) that was more acceptable. And the 4x4's, tv's, holidays, etc. soon followed.

Just my opinion, probably wrong.