If house prices fall another 37% ...

agent_orange_2

Jim_B wrote: »

Yes. They were quite happy to allow the tube bombings but they'll definitely stop short of the 57% average drop mark.

What on earth do mean by that?

ad9898_3

57% does sound like a hefty fall, however I'm ruling nothing out. If someone had come on these boards 2 years ago and said starting in October 2007 house prices are going to drop 20% in the following 18 months, they would have been ridiculed.

So apart from going up 57% in the next 3 years, I don't think anything can be ruled out.

Jim_B_3

agent_orange wrote: »

What on earth do mean by that?

I mean they've got very little control over either.

agent_orange_2

Jim_B wrote: »

I mean they've got very little control over either.

Oh, I thought you suggested they were quite happy to allow the tube bombings.

I must have misunderstood when you said "They were quite happy to allow the tube bombings"

the_ash_and_the_oak

like a number of other western nations we have a problem with an ageing population imo

Kenny4315

Jim_B wrote: »

Yes. They were quite happy to allow the tube bombings but they'll definitely stop short of the 57% average drop mark.

Haven't got a clue why you are comparing these two.

There are plenty of tools that could be used to stablise the UK house prices. I think that even those pair of fools understand that house prices got too high, and the get out of jail free card was the US sub-prime card so why not let that and the ensuing credit crunch, take the blame for Mr Clowns scr3w ups.

In reality the correction had been round the corner since 2006, but Mr Clown kept things moving to keep consumer spending high, 'the end to boom and bust', so he said.

In reality the UK got to around 35% too high, so a 57% correction is just simply not going to happen.

Jim_B_3

agent_orange wrote: »

Oh, I thought you suggested they were quite happy to allow the tube bombings.

I must have misunderstood when you said "They were quite happy to allow the tube bombings"

[not to be taken literally] Yeah, you got me! Actually they were directly masterminded by Brown and Darling! [/not to be taken literally]

Jim_B_3

Assume that the "correct" price is 100.

100 to 135 - 35% too high.
135 to 58.05 - 57% drop.

That's from 35 over to 42.95 under. If they can go 35 over, I reckon they could go 42.95 under, given the right circumstances such as increased unemployment, increasing tax burden and all the rest of the things we may well have to look forwards to.

Yakubu22

As a renter then i'd be personally very happy for that to happen. I earn around the average wage specified in the article and would love to be able to buy a decent house in a nice area without borrowing 5x

zappahey

Not to suggest that his vested interest is directing his writing but it should be noted that, like me, Cliff D'Arcy, the author of the article, has sold to rent.