Nationwide +1.3 (-6.2 YoY)

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Well I guess there is no further point in trying to explain or reason on this point.

Your going round in circles and still haven't understood that the amount the trend has been pulled up by in recent years is minimal and if there is an overshoot similar to before below the trend line, it would only be pulled down marginally.

I guess that possibly unsubconciously to you, you subscribe to the boom and bust of house prices above and below the proven long term trend

Where have I ever said that it has been pulled up a lot? Or a little?

I have JUST said it has been pulled up. You agree. Therefore, we agree.

I haven't not understood anything, and I do wish you would stop telling me in every thread I haven't understood something when I have not even remarked about the thing I'm not supposed to understand. Just confuses me as then I AM confused as to what I'm supposed to be confused about.

ad9898_3

julieq wrote: »

Ad has really recovered all of his applomb now, I was very worried about him this morning when he looked a broken man

You know, I have this vision that you're really cute.:D

Graham_Devon

GSXRCarlos wrote: »

white and black are completely different things, black is an absence of colour, and is only actually black because our language tells us such, maybe black really is white, and we're all incorrectly interpreting the signals our brain tells us, how about that ???

You are just wrong. I'll find a reason later as to why, but for now, you have not understood blue.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Where have I ever said that it has been pulled up a lot? Or a little?

I have JUST said it has been pulled up. You agree. Therefore, we agree.

I haven't not understood anything, and I do wish you would stop telling me in every thread I haven't understood something when I have not even remarked about the thing I'm not supposed to understand. Just confuses me as then I AM confused as to what I'm supposed to be confused about.

Would the trend line have been pulled down during the early 90's? I assume you will agree yes, thus its an average throughout the ups and downs.

It's a long term average, it trends very slightly up and down as actual prices go above and below the trend line

Graham_Devon

I might argue that it stays static in a min, at least then I won't be totally bewildered as to what were not in agreement about.

mewbie_2

!!!!!! are you idiots talking about? The trend line is based on the figures in the chart / graph. Therefore if the figures go up the trend line goes up, and vice versa. So of course the bubble pulled the trend line up, and the crash will pull it down.

There's stupidity and MSE stupidity.

Try it on a spreadsheet it you don't believe me. It's a piece of p1ss to prove / disprove.

Idiots.

Graham_Devon

mewbie wrote: »

!!!!!! are you idiots talking about? The trend line is based on the figures in the chart / graph. Therefore if the figures go up the trend line goes up, and vice versa. So of course the bubble pulled the trend line up, and the crash will pull it down.

There's stupidity and MSE stupidity.

Try it on a spreadsheet it you don't believe me. It's a piece of p1ss to prove / disprove.

Idiots.

Psssstttt. I don't think your allowed to say the crash will bring it down. Got a whole page of arguing over that. I think "fall" is allowed, but to be honest, I'm really not too sure, as I didnt understand something, and it could have been that.

I haven't tried decline yet, if your feeling lucky.

Gravity is certainly a no no.

poppy10_2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

That's roughly 40% of the way through the crash by your prediction and more than the "not even 1/3" of the way through it

I was talking in terms of prices, not timescale. I believe prices will fall 50-60% from peak, with a 15-20% fall so far we are about a third of the way through.

Oh, and seeing how you seem to like overusing winking smilies so much:
;);););););););););););););););););););)

julieq

mewbie wrote: »

!!!!!! are you idiots talking about? The trend line is based on the figures in the chart / graph. Therefore if the figures go up the trend line goes up, and vice versa. So of course the bubble pulled the trend line up, and the crash will pull it down.

There's stupidity and MSE stupidity.

Try it on a spreadsheet it you don't believe me. It's a piece of p1ss to prove / disprove.

Idiots.

Go on then, prove it. You did a great job with 8 fold a little while back

It really doesn't move significantly because of bubbles, because the whole point of averaging is to remove short term spikes. Or crashes for that matter, that was the point of the demonstration of the averages. You really can't shift the result much even with quite big swings in the numbers because of the weight of the accumulated numbers in the averaging.

And maybe you could stop calling people childish names?

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Psssstttt. I don't think your allowed to say the crash will bring it down. Got a whole page of arguing over that. I think "fall" is allowed, but to be honest, I'm really not too sure, as I didnt understand something, and it could have been that.

I haven't tried decline yet, if your feeling lucky.

Gravity is certainly a no no.

Graham, you have completely misunderstood. No-one cares whether you call changes crashes or falls or rises or booms or whatever you like. I have not picked you up on words, I am challenging your numbers.

The maths says the changes don't significantly affect the exponential trend line. Why is that so difficult to grasp? It stays pretty much where it is regardless of booms busts rises falls crashes soars, whatever you want to call them.

Mewbie is about to find that out when he gets his spreadsheet running.