MSE News: House prices to fall next year, says Nationwide

Emy1501

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Where did I say that money should be spent on propping up the economy rather than healthcare, education etc?

So with £9Billion being attributed to propping up house prices, this equates to £145 per person

Whats your point then? Elderly people are freezing to death. Our education system is poor and healthcare's poor as well. Deaths from cancer in this country are way higher than in many European countries.

The government claim they do not have any further funds to invest in the above but your happy for them to sink 9B into keeping house prices high as its only a £145 a person. To be honest I'm not sure why people are moaning about immigration as this only costs 13B per year so less than £250 a person:rolleyes:

chucky

Emy1501 wrote: »

As for 2009 demand supporting 2009 transactions I wonder what would have happened if the 9B had not been put into the housing market?

i wouldn't spend your life wondering - things happen and you miss them...

get your story straight a few posts ago it was £15 billion now it's £9 billion

Emy1501

chucky wrote: »

i wouldn't spend your life wondering - things happen and you miss them...

get your story straight a few posts ago it was £15 billion now it's £9 billion

Its clearly way more than 9B but to keep ISTL happy I've left it 9B. I notice though that you haven't answered the question asked and just brushed it aside. To be honest bulls like yourself are no better than the bears who claim house prices have not gone up over the last 6 months or so and claim the Haliwide figures are fixed. You are all blinded by what you need to believe.

chucky

Emy1501 wrote: »

Its clearly way more than 9B but to keep ISTL happy I've left it 9B. I notice though that you haven't answered the question asked and just brushed it aside though

my point was self explanatory and pretty clear - there was a comparison between two scenarios.

if it went over your heard there is no need to try and use me for therapy... :rolleyes:

Emy1501

chucky wrote: »

my point was self explanatory and pretty clear - there was a comparison between two scenarios.

if it went over your heard there is no need to try and use me for therapy... :rolleyes:

Ah another one who uses personal attacks when they are not capable of answering a question. That fine though I remember Mr Brown doing it to Mr Cable some years ago. I think I know who was proved to be right then too:D

Emy1501

Afriend wrote: »

I have responded to your questions above.

The FSA stressed tested all the banks in May this year against 50% falls and all passed so your first answer is wrong. As for interest rates whats the relevance? Interest rates are at .5% to stop deflation. Interests fell in 2005 in accordance with the BOE's policy. What this got to do with house prices? The simple question was if the 9B had nothing to do with keeping house prices high why was invested into the housing market?

chucky

Emy1501 wrote: »

Interests fell in 2005 in accordance with the BOE's policy.

that box must be very small, you don't think out of it...

The first real signs of a slowdown came in June 2004, when Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, spoke in public about his concerns for the housing market.

"Anyone entering or moving within the housing market should consider carefully the possible future paths of both house prices and interest rates," he said in a speech in Glasgow

Big Merv then decreased rates a few times within the next 12 months, coincidence or was he trying to keep the housing bubble going just before election time in 2005 - are you still thinking rates are exclusively BOE policy?

Emy1501 wrote: »

What this got to do with house prices?

quite a bit if you think outside the box?

Emy1501

chucky wrote: »

that box must be very small, you don't think out of it...
Big Merv then decreased rates a few times within the next 12 months, coincidence or was he trying to keep the housing bubble going just before election time in 2005 - are you still thinking rates are exclusively BOE policy?



quite a bit if you think outside the box?

Personally I think Mervs comments would have put most off buying. If you read the whole of his comments he actually said in 2004 that house prices as they were were not sustainable in the long run. BOE are independent. Also whats it got to do with the question asked? You claimed that the government has not propped up the housing market and that prices have risen due to buyer demand. Now you seem to be suggesting that the government are keeping prices high to try and win the next election.

To be honest the suggestion that the 2005 interest rate cut of .25% had any real effect on house prices is a bit of a HPC myth in my opinion. Its highly unlikely that a .25% interest cut would have had any relevance on house pricesI think this would have been obvious to Merv. I think it would have been more to do with 125% mortgages. Subprime, Liar Loans etc. I remember back in 2004 no main lender would offer more than 3 times joint income. By 2006 Abbey were offering 5X joint!

PS when was the 2005 election? was it not in May? When was the interest cut was in not in August? Actually what is your point? Interest rates were not cut in 2004?

treliac

Afriend wrote: »

You have a woman's name Emy, but your writing style seems a little male.
Which are you? I guess male.

If so, it wouldn't be the first male under cover of a female name.

Emy1501

Afriend wrote: »

You have a woman's name Emy, but your writing style seems a little male.
Which are you? I guess male.

male relevance? Sorry did not know Emy was a womans name. Did not even know it was a womens name or had a relevance to a woman? Do you understand what Chucky was going on about? Are we talking about the UK?