Halifax +2.6 % MoM

Really2

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

I think you guys are just winding him up!!

Would I

But seriously he needs to start thing with figures Rather than trying to make a picture fit because the picture "must be true"

Like proven anything can fit given no scale (to a point) for sure. But if you do that be prepared for your predictions to be wrong.

Market forces are the only thing that effect prices (thus graphs)not pictures.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Please....return the favour and plot your own graph with your talk about timelines etc, plot it into 2030, and lets see how nice it looks and how relevant to this discussion about the first chart it is.

Like I said graham I don't need to its balls, this crash will do what this crash does. Not follow that picture.

I would look at the graph after not use that one to predict the future.

Most crashes have been 20% or less, I went 30% not 90%

Graham_Devon

I should have left this when I said I would.

You bulls have changed absolutely everything to suit. Every single part of it has been changed to suit agenda's.

Were now arguing about the timeline in which you said there was no timeline, but oh god, we HAVE to attach a timeline now to prove it wrong, even though it was wrong in the first place apparently, but not wrong enough.

Only thing it does do is prove it right.

Where does the initial chart give an actual time in years for the cycle? Nowhere.

I give up. I'll come back to it in 2012.

mewbie_2

At least we all agree that is was a mad bubble, the worst ever, and it is going to crash for a lot longer yet.

Really2

mewbie wrote: »

At least we all agree that is was a mad bubble, the worst ever, and it is going to crash for a lot longer yet.

Yes to the bubble but I we are well past half way on falls.

How a bout a partial agreement.

mewbie_2

Right to be absolutely honest, no messing about for once. I really believe house prices were at least double what they should have been, prices fluffed up beyond what is normal.. So I am afraid that I am firmly in the 50% camp, and my rough guess / gut feeling would be 20% so far, then 10% a year for another 3 years.

I think people totally lost sight of what a hundred thousand pounds really is - ie. a lot of money.

Graham_Devon

fatpig wrote: »

More graphs please Graham, the bulls don't like them very much as they expose their lies.

Jesus no. Theres some they REALLY don't like. And thats one of them.

lostinrates

mewbie wrote: »

I think people totally lost sight of what a hundred thousand pounds really is - ie. a lot of money.

I find myself doing exactly this when property searching. I also find myself thinking our deposit is 'tiny', when its not, its a hell of a lot of money. I look at things and think '' thats only 100k out of out of budget, then calculating what that would cost us monthly (not over the life of a mortgage) and it seems easy:o. In actual fact, 100k IS a lot.

baileysbattlebus

Here's one for Graham, the gold price from 2004 - it follows the early stages of the bubble - but it doesn't drop off the end of a cliff.

Why didn't it reach the full "blow off" stage - could be any number of reasons. Fears for the banking system, falling asset prices, low interest rates, falling yields, the money supply being expanded, defaltion, hyperinflation, loads of reasons why you might want to buy gold and shove it under the floor boards. But gold is both a commodity and money.


The same wth housing or anything else. Something could happen that would disrupt the falls in housing - say a general election? A sudden tightening of planning regs. A sudden availability of 95% LTV mortgage credit. An introduction of a means tested state pension - that could have loads of people thinking - I've got to buy a house and buy it now. (Pigs might fly) but you get the general idea. The list is endless - and conversely a lot of things could happen to make the falls sharper. A raising of interest rates into double figures next week for instance.

Graham_Devon

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

Here's one for Graham, the gold price from 2004 - it follows the early stages of the bubble - but it doesn't drop off the end of a cliff.

Why didn't it reach the full "blow off" stage - could be any number of reasons. Fears for the banking system, falling asset prices, low interest rates, falling yields, the money supply being expanded, defaltion, hyperinflation, loads of reasons why you might want to buy gold and shove it under the floor boards. But gold is both a commodity and money.


The same wth housing or anything else. Something could happen that would disrupt the falls in housing - say a general election? A sudden tightening of planning regs. A sudden availability of 95% LTV mortgage credit. An introduction of a means tested state pension - that could have loads of people thinking - I've got to buy a house and buy it now. (Pigs might fly) but you get the general idea. The list is endless - and conversely a lot of things could happen to make the falls sharper. A raising of interest rates into double figures next week for instance.

Thanks, but I'm not talking about gold prices. Never have either. Gold is more volitile than house prices, everyone knows that.

To be fair, if the bears have the substance, I suppose it follows that the bulls must have the spin.

Bears have given substance in this thread. Making up things such as the 2020-30 thing, well, I don't need to go much further here.