A cold breeze up the kilt for Hamish

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What about families? Families starting out, without asset wealth.

How are they fairing?

Won't somebody please think of the families?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

abaxas wrote: »

I find it sick to think that people like Hamish wallow in others misery and actively enjoy people not having the same chances as they have. What a negative minded and nasty indiviual.

And I find it far sicker that you actively wish for mass misery, poverty, recession, unemployment, negative equity, bankruptcy, etc to be inflicted on millions of people just so that a handful of you can get a slightly cheaper house.

The bears on here and hpc have repeatedly proven yourselves to be sick, twisted, selfish, spiteful, bitter and nasty little people for the last 2 years.

You cannot begin to comprehend the contempt I feel for anyone who would cheer on a recession and unemployment for millions just to save a few grand on a house.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Cleaver wrote: »

Won't somebody please think of the families?

Ahhhh, but are they "hard working families"?;)

Cleaver

macaque wrote: »

Capital Economics did get it wrong. They made the mistake of applying rational economic theory whilst Gordon Brown was at the helm. They underestimated Gordon's determination to sustain the bubble. We now have interest rates at their lowest level for 300 years and massive levels of quantitative easing. Capital Economics never reckoned on Gordon putting a match to the balloon canopy to keep it aloft.

If you're a think tank who are in the game of predicting which way an index or price of something goes then surely looking at the political party in power and trying to second-guess what their role will be is quite a fundemental aspect of the big picture.

It's like me putting £10 on Liverpool to win the title and then moaning that I would have put my money on a different team if I'd known that Benitez would play Lucas in every game. If I was more astute I would have known or predicted that in the first place.

I know what you're saying though macaque, but when anyone makes a prediction you assume that they have taken evey possible scenario, looked at the chances of each happening and based it on that. Then you just have to be lucky. And looking at what Hamish has posted, this lot have either been very unlucky or just very wrong.

abaxas

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And I find it far sicker that you actively wish for mass misery, poverty, recession, unemployment, negative equity, bankruptcy, etc to be inflicted on millions of people just so that a handful of you can get a slightly cheaper house.

The bears on here and hpc have repeatedly proven yourselves to be sick, twisted, selfish, spiteful, bitter and nasty little people for the last 2 years.

You cannot begin to comprehend the contempt I feel for anyone who would cheer on a recession and unemployment for millions just to save a few grand on a house.

There is a very large difference between someone who shouldn't have bought then someone who would like to. No-one forced anyone into buying anything, they chose with their own free will.

The issue with negative equity and reposession is that it's mostly self inflicted. If you can't plan for the future payments, should you really be buying it? In Brown's new world, you should. However the reality is somewhat different.

Your home is at risk if you do not keep up repayments etc etc. They were told over and over, but they didnt listen.

Thrugelmir

Cidersid wrote: »

So when does she sing???

When the party's finally over.......

Thrugelmir

StevieJ wrote: »

Whereas you would like negative equity, defaulting mortgages and people thrown out onto the streets so house prices crash :eek:

House prices don't require these factors to move downwards in the longer term.

Thrugelmir

Cleaver wrote: »

If you're a think tank who are in the game of predicting which way an index or price of something goes then surely looking at the political party in power and trying to second-guess what their role will be is quite a fundemental aspect of the big picture.

It's like me putting £10 on Liverpool to win the title and then moaning that I would have put my money on a different team if I'd known that Benitez would play Lucas in every game. If I was more astute I would have known or predicted that in the first place.

I know what you're saying though macaque, but when anyone makes a prediction you assume that they have taken evey possible scenario, looked at the chances of each happening and based it on that. Then you just have to be lucky. And looking at what Hamish has posted, this lot have either been very unlucky or just very wrong.

There's an inherent danger in reading selective soundbites without seeing the full report in its full context. Capital Economics publish full reports on a subscription only basis. Trying to obtain a view a precised newspaper summary from a press release is somewhat dangerous.

Anybody that's ever forecasted anything will know that the numbers constantly change. Even companies use rolling 3 month forecasts now rather than the more traditional annual budgets.

StevieJ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

There's an inherent danger in reading selective soundbites without seeing the full report in its full context. Capital Economics publish full reports on a subscription only basis. Trying to obtain a view a precised newspaper summary from a press release is somewhat dangerous.

Anybody that's ever forecasted anything will know that the numbers constantly change. Even companies use rolling 3 month forecasts now rather than the more traditional annual budgets.

The best was 2007 when they finally gave up and the market crashed :rotfl:

Wookster

Conrad wrote: »

The static-bear's favorite line.

Which fundamentals would these be then?

The only fundamental that really counts in market direction is Human will.
Honestly there is so mmuch wealth around now, it astounds me. Come and sit with me for a day and I'll show you. Just ordinary London folk with so much asset wealth.

Principally that would be the trade deficit that we have maintained for decades.

Any economist will tell you that this is is unsustainable indefinitely.