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

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Thankyou.

You will now see why I responded with what I did.

Hopefully you can see why I get so frustrated having to explain myself over and over while being told I don't understand and being told I'm dense.

No one picks Hamish up on his use of supply and demand, but if I respond to his use and say that's not quite correct, I'm lambasted. It's getting tiring. Maybe a name change is called for, as I can't seem to shake off people homing in on something I have said, regardless as to what it's in response to.

TBF Graham if you read the rest of that post I think what hamish wrote made sense in terms of how a market works.

So I go back to i think it as always been based on supply and demand.

I think my auction example is a shining beacon in a rather over elongated thread.:D

ruggedtoast

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Thankyou.

You will now see why I responded with what I did.

Hopefully you can see why I get so frustrated having to explain myself over and over while being told I don't understand and being told I'm dense.

No one picks Hamish up on his use of supply and demand, but if I respond to his use and say that's not quite correct, I'm lambasted. It's getting tiring. Maybe a name change is called for, as I can't seem to shake off people homing in on something I have said, regardless as to what it's in response to.

I think I did Graham. I explained quite clearly in terms that are commonly used in every Level 1 business studies class, in the world probably.

He didnt understand, replied saying I was thick then started rambling on about demand again, clearly without understanding what the term actually means.

Its all he will ever do. Its all he ever has done. Why bother to argue with him?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No one picks Hamish up on his use of supply and demand

what Hamish said is correct in general terms

Graham_Devon wrote: »

...but if I respond to his use and say that's not quite correct, I'm lambasted. It's getting tiring.

you shouldn't really be crying off like that - you reap what you say Devon...

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Maybe a name change is called for, as I can't seem to shake off people homing in on something I have said, regardless as to what it's in response to.

i know that you're capable of it but don't use Graham_Devon2

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

what Hamish said is correct in general terms

LOL. Hamish base's supply and demand solely on buyers vs sellers. Thats correct in general terms.

I base supply and demand on buyers vs sellers and then say theres far more to it than that, and I'm completely wrong, don't understand, am dense, and it turns into a 4 page argument about what supply and demand is with chucky telling me all about whats included in supply and demand.

After all that telling me whats included, chucky says "but yer, hamish is correct in general terms".

Go figure.

julieq

ruggedtoast wrote: »

No it isn't - Principles of Business 101 my buillish friend.

Supply and demand is calculated over a matrix that incorporates three variables. The life cycle of every single product you can buy in every market that exists is analysed and forecasted like this.

You can't just ignore one of them because it doesnt suit your personal views!

(Or that you think it somehow doesnt apply to houses)

Rugged, I do this for a living, and I have no idea how you apply product lifecycle concepts to a house purchase. At a streeeeeetttttccccchhh you could arguably apply it to trends around particular forms of house, heating, internals, and so on, but in general the house is not a new concept ramping up to a steady demand before going out of fashion.

Supply and demand are independent variables, not sides of a seesaw as Graham appears to think. The only other factor is the expectation of sellers in a market, because that is the starting point for all the, err, goat trading, and game theory tells us that sets the expectation of the buyers to an extent.

You can actually have supply and demand both rising, but the price will change as a result of the differential. Last year, supply was probably falling as prices dropped, but demand was falling faster because of uncertainty about the end point, dropping off of confidence and the all important difficulty of getting a loan. Demand is now munching the available supply of anything with quality as buyers fall over themselves to snap houses up before they rise. Supply will probably increase slightly as prices are realised, leading to a slowing of the rate of increase or a drop, if the price drops back too far, sellers will drop out and supply will fall. It's essentially self regulating.

System

Would this be the time to point out the demand is defined as having the ability to pay, as well as the desire?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

After all that telling me whats included, chucky says "but yer, hamish is correct in general terms".

Go figure.

Devonian economic theory struggling with the basics... :rolleyes:

Go figure.

ruggedtoast

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Would this be the time to point out the demand is defined as having the ability to pay, as well as the desire?

I already did that on page 1 or 2.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

Devonian economic theory struggling with the basics... :rolleyes:

Go figure.

I bet you couldn't even explain what "basics" i'm struggling with, in reference to your quote, even if you tried.

As per usual.

Easier to just attack over and over, as Julie did above with the drivel she came up with in response to my question to her.

julieq

I'm struggling to see what is being objected to in Hamish's post relating to supply and demand.

There are some baffling comments from Rugged and Graham's question regarding how prices were falling when supply was being choked after the banking crisis (answer, demand was falling faster, demand was affected by confidence and withdrawal of mortgage finance, both of which Hamish explained clearly).

Can Graham or Rugged please explain which precise bit of the post they are disagreeing with and why?

(presumably we're about to get a sulky "I can't be bothered explaining now")