Watch Out: the housing market is about to turn back down

C_Mababejive

Hey heres another graph...they all look strangely similar,only the titles change.

IveSeenTheLight

Really2 wrote: »

This is a pretty picture that looks like a graph,


Much like half the ones we see posted as FACT on here.:)

Damn, thought I could refer to a masonic star I saw in your pretty picture and say there were hidden meanings there.
But there is only 5 points to your star

Harry_Powell

Brilliant!!! Only the genius Graham Devon could start an argument about what a graph is, notice the subtle skill of how he pulls in 'Aberdeen' and 'Supply and Demand', he's quietly assembling the off-topic concept threads with which to entangle his foes.

How naive of them to fall for it, time and time again.

Go Graham, go!!

IveSeenTheLight

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Brilliant!!! Only the genius Graham Devon could start an argument about what a graph is, notice the subtle skill of how he pulls in 'Aberdeen' and 'Supply and Demand', he's quietly assembling the off-topic concept threads with which to entangle his foes.

How naive of them to fall for it, time and time again.

Go Graham, go!!

Only four posts up, I asked him again on topic after he tried to wriggle out as you show above.

Let's see if he accepts getting back on topic?

b0rker

Yoshua wrote: »

Chucky must be the only one in the world so deluded.

I wonder how many people when shown both graph would choose chuckys as the most realistic?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Neither are at all realistic.

That is the point of the bull graph.

To counterweight the equally stupid bear graph,

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Seems you are getting confused yourself GD



So to get back on topic, you seem to disagree with my interpretation of where we were on the drawing. Can you make your points as to why?

Yes.

Because your interpretation takes us under the mean line for quite a while (I know there is no time reference on the chart, but it don't take a genius to see that it falls under mean for about the same length of time as it took from peak to trough).

We haven't undershot the mean line on any index.

That's why I disagree with your interpretation.

Harry_Powell

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Only four posts up, I asked him again on topic after he tried to wriggle out as you show above.

Let's see if he accepts getting back on topic?

He won't, that's his genius.

I love his other tactic how he drops a statement in like "Ha! You'll soon be telling us that aliens will land and demand housing, thus pushing up house prices", then leave it a couple of pages and then suddenly out of the blue he'll shout "Well, how can we believe anything from a person who said that aliens will land and demand housing??!!!"

Ab-so-lutely genius!

Once I realised what he was doing it was like seeing through a magic trick. You look around at the rest of the audience and laugh at them for being taken in. No one is as idiotic as Graham makes out, it's all a scam to tie up the bears in never-ending and pointless arguments.

Sheer bloody genius!

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes.

Because your interpretation takes us under the mean line for quite a while (I know there is no time reference on the chart, but it don't take a genius to see that it falls under mean for about the same length of time as it took from peak to trough).

We haven't undershot the mean line on any index.

That's why I disagree with your interpretation.

I take your point about the time under the mean line, but as you agree, there is no scaling or time reference.

As for no index having been below the mean, you are incorrect on this.

You can see this on Nationwide's Long Term House Price Trend
(see here on page 3)
http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/historical/Sep_2009.pdf

Granted it did not go very far below, but surely from a stability sense you would want prices to follow the mean instead of boomin and busting way above and below.

Given that you disagreed because you thought that no index had went below the mean and you have been shown that this was not true, do you now agree with my interpretation?

For your benefit, I've uploaded Nationwides graph showing that prices went under the mean.

IveSeenTheLight

Harry_Powell wrote: »

He won't, that's his genius.

He did though :eek:

I'm looking forward to his reply to my counter post

julieq

But, but, but, but

That's not the long term mean.

It's only the long term mean because it includes the last boom and the effects of the Government pumping gazillions into the economy via QE and zero rate interest policy and space aliens destroying ALL reposessed houses.

The real long term mean is much lower. If you strip out all the peaks and just leave the troughs, which gives a far more accurate measure of average house prices to the average lower paid single person, you get a long term mean of, well, 2.7% compounded.

Is that a fair representation of your position, Graham dear? Or have I used too many long words?