Some facts for a change, instead of speculation......

ruggedtoast

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Good grief. It's like arguing with a 3 year old..... or Graham.

Ferrari produce (supply) enough cars to meet current demand, and no more. They can then set the price for those cars. Vintage Ferrari's can only command prices of millions of pounds because there are not enough of them to meet demand.

If the demand for houses (including ability to pay) is greater than supply then prices rise. If the demand for houses (including ability to pay) is lower than supply (as happened last year when mortgages became almost unavailable) then prices fall.

Now that supply has reduced, and demand has increased (as mortgage lending increases), then prices have risen.

It really is that simple.

Omg - Hamish has entered the arena of battle. I am stunned - you actually replied to an argument.

So lets get this straight - in your head the demand for Ferraris is limited because not many people want them, and they dont want to make many anyway - and then they set the price to stop too many people wanting them because they cant be bothered to make more.

Rather than the market setting the price?

But houses are totally different.

Right - I would love to see you on Dragon's Den Hamish.

And you replied with more ignorance about supply and demand - and another dig at Graham, which is mean.

N :rotfl:B

lemonjelly

chucky wrote: »

no, i don't think you upset any apple cart.

it's good to debate these things and be able to explain how things work to other members of the forum.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Even to people like Graham who will be unable to understand it anyway.;)

We are a charitable bunch here...

Sorry guys, I find these 2 responses condescending. We, the all knowing, can share our knowledge with you peasant type neanderthals. It may have been well meant, but comes across really badly IMO.

chucky wrote: »

i agree with your crisps analogy - but people do have a choice they can eat crisps, peanuts, chocolate or a million other snacks if they think crisps are too expensive.

with houses the options are limited due the constraints of work, family requirements, locations, wages etc...

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Good grief. It's like arguing with a 3 year old..... or Graham.

Ferrari produce (supply) enough cars to meet current demand, and no more. They can then set the price for those cars. Vintage Ferrari's can only command prices of millions of pounds because there are not enough of them to meet demand.

If the demand for houses (including ability to pay) is greater than supply then prices rise. If the demand for houses (including ability to pay) is lower than supply (as happened last year when mortgages became almost unavailable) then prices fall.

Now that supply has reduced, and demand has increased (as mortgage lending increases), then prices have risen.

It really is that simple.

It really isn't that simple, as chucky points out. Even the pair of you can't agree.

There are numerous significant factors which affect supply & demand, sentiment, employment, family circumstances, career changes, care responsibilities, schooling, aims & desires, keeping up with the joneses etc etc etc. To sya its is simply supply/demand is extremely narrow minded.

chucky

lemonjelly wrote: »

Sorry guys, I find these 2 responses condescending. We, the all knowing, can share our knowledge with you peasant type neanderthals. It may have been well meant, but comes across really badly IMO.

you are correct it was. it was not directed at the normal forum user just those that refuse to accept other peoples views.

apologies in advance to all the normal people

lemonjelly wrote: »

It really isn't that simple, as chucky points out. Even the pair of you can't agree.

you are correct again - i am much better looking than brother Hamish

lemonjelly wrote: »

To sya its is simply supply/demand is extremely narrow minded.

can you explain that to that Devon chap please?

Really2

lemonjelly wrote: »

There are numerous significant factors which affect supply & demand, sentiment, employment, family circumstances, career changes, care responsibilities, schooling, aims & desires, keeping up with the joneses etc etc etc. To sya its is simply supply/demand is extremely narrow minded.

Sorry i disagree with your last statement and you do to a point

There is no argument factors effect supply and demand.

Really2 wrote: »

What other factors are there that are not supply and demand related? All the externals (jobs, IR etc) are just causes that effect Supply and demand.

But is is only supply and demand that sets the market (sale) price.

if anyone could give an example of how prices have changed not because of supply and demand I am all ears?

Graham_Devon

lemonjelly wrote: »

It really isn't that simple, as chucky points out. Even the pair of you can't agree.

There are numerous significant factors which affect supply & demand, sentiment, employment, family circumstances, career changes, care responsibilities, schooling, aims & desires, keeping up with the joneses etc etc etc. To sya its is simply supply/demand is extremely narrow minded.

Though it will be said that's all included in supply and demand....you have hit the nail on the head.

The point of this thread, with the OP was to show how supply and demand couldn't possibly allow prices to fall from here. OP highlighted the parts on which he was basing this.....and that was low volumes of houses for sale vs buyers.

Now, it all seems to have backtracked into a supply and demand argument, where seemingly now, we are talking about supply and demand in an entirely different way to the OP.

So, either Hamish is right to suggest what he did in the OP about the low number of homes vs higher number of buyers = supply and demand. Or, he was wrong to use it in that way, as I have been trying to highlight.

Hamish, use "high demand vs low sellers" from now on please.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Now, it all seems to have backtracked into a supply and demand argument, where seemingly now, we are talking about supply and demand in an entirely different way to the OP.

So, either Hamish is right to suggest what he did in the OP about the low number of homes vs higher number of buyers = supply and demand. Or, he was wrong to use it in that way, as I have been trying to highlight.

who says that we all have to agree with Hamish?

i don't agree with everything he says, just like he doesn't agree with all my posts.

Really2

To be fair it was this comment that sparked the debate.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Supply and demand must be the new buzz word.

In the last 2 months, it seems thats all that's talked about as if it's the be all and end all.

the_ash_and_the_oak

Supply and demand of houses to live in, supply and demand of houses to buy, supply and demand of credit are all different imo

An increase in people alone is not an increase in demand imo. An increase in people with access to sufficient credit is an increase in demand. The former does not necessarily lead to the latter. The latter can occur without the former

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

who says that we all have to agree with Hamish?

i don't agree with everything he says, just like he doesn't agree with all my posts.

What? I never said we all had to agree either.

This argument has stemmed from Hamish's use of "supply and demand".

He has used it in a singular way, house sellers vs buyers, and put the question to use how houses can fall in price because of this.

I suggested there were other areas that effected the housing market. Ever since then, all those factors I have suggested, along with others others have suggested, are all being wrapped in into "supply and demand" with the good old "graham doesnt understand, only graham doesnt understand, grahams thick" when all along, it was hamish himself using it wrong.

I have never suggested everyone should agree. But I think we can all see how supply and demand was used, a question was therefore asked, and how this argument has started.

I believe there is far more effecting the housing market than supply and demand, as HAMISH used the description. Sentiment, employment, taxes etc.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

To be fair it was this comment that sparked the debate.

Yes, because in the way Hamish used it (low sellers vs high buyers), it's NOT the be all and end all. Theres much more out there to effect his version of supply and demand, which your all saying I don't understand, but I was the first to pick up on!

I'm sure you can agree with that!?

Or are you agreeing with Hamish?

Again, you cannot have it both ways.