MSE News: Halifax: housing shortage boosts prices

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We actually now have an example of how stimulus being pulled effects the economy (not house prices specifically). That example is Germany, who now fear a double dip after seeing big declines, with massive job cuts lined up in the auto industry now stimulus has gone.

can you explain where the similarities are with a country that doesn't have a housing bubble and the stimulus was implemented late compared to the UK. you may have obviously not noticed that Germany is part of the Euro - i'll leave that one with you to work out why they are having ongoing problems... :rolleyes:

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The rises have gone on far longer than I would have imagined, and I will admit that I was indeed wrong in my thoughts. However, I also didn't think at the time when £75bn was printed, that we would hit £200bn. I don't even bother guessing anymore. Could be £400bn before we know it.

what's the difference with putting £100 billion or even £200 billion into the economy or even £400 billion mean - do you actually know? 1 million less job losses or 2 million, £50 million being lent by banks or £100 billion. you don't know do you? lol

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes, a lot of bears were wrong.

yep - i find that quite funny. shows a lack of understanding. which you've shown above... :rolleyes:

stueyhants

chucky wrote: »

...
what's the difference with putting £100 billion or even £200 billion into the economy or even £400 billion mean - do you actually know? 1 million less job losses or 2 million, £50 million being lent by banks or £100 billion. you don't know do you? lol




bitter much?

Do you know this ? No, so why laugh ? Are you suggesting that creating £200bn has no more impact than £100bn.

the_ash_and_the_oak

I think the suggestion isn't that one hasn't more of an effect on the other its that its not really v measurable? 15 pints has more of an effect than 11 but...

chucky

stueyhants wrote: »

Do you know this ? No, so why laugh ? Are you suggesting that creating £200bn has no more impact than £100bn.

i'm laughing because i can and want to... is that ok with you?

no i'm not saying that 200bn has more impact than 100bn. i'm not from devon.

here's a question for you Stuart from Hants - is this money re-capitalising balance sheets, missing out balance sheets and hitting trading desks, being used to buy assets or going out on the money markets to be lent?

i'll leave it with you

stueyhants

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

I think the suggestion isn't that one hasn't more of an effect on the other its that its not really v measurable? 15 pints has more of an effect than 11 but...

Depends if the 11 pints are special brew

I just found it odd that the post was laughed at when Graham wasn't trying to suggest any specific numerical effect of QE just an observation that the QE was bigger than orginally antcipated.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

i'm laughing because i can and want to... is that ok with you?

no i'm not saying that 200bn has more impact than 100bn. i'm not from devon.

here's a question for you Stuart from Hants - is this money re-capitalising balance sheets, missing out balance sheets and hitting trading desks, being used to buy assets or going out on the money markets to be lent?

i'll leave it with you

It's very simple, though you choose to ignore it and simply throw stupid abuse around.

QE may be sorting out the balance sheets.

But without those balance sheets being shored up, lending would not be happening.

As for the rest of it, especially the "does £200bn make any difference to £75bn" I believe you are just trying to inflame my post for some reason. So I won't be responding to it. I stated I was wrong about QE, so theres really no need for you to try and twist soemthing into something else to make a little jab.

chucky

stueyhants wrote: »

Depends if the 11 pints are special brew

I just found it odd that the post was laughed at when Graham wasn't trying to suggest any specific numerical effect of QE just an observation that the QE was bigger than orginally antcipated.

ok Stuey - i understand what your point was but that wasn't what i was implying.

many posters make predictions (even me) and get them wrong. but saying that QE was 100bn and now 200bn the reason you got your predictions wrong is a bit dim. what does that 200bn actually mean or the 400bn he mentioned mean? my point is he doesn't have a clue.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's very simple, though you choose to ignore it and simply throw stupid abuse around.

lol - now that is worth laughing at. if you call that abuse you have lived a very, very sheltered childhood.
i doubt it very much though as you're playing the victim here to deflect your pretending to know what you're talking about (again).

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As for the rest of it, especially the "does £200bn make any difference to £75bn" I believe you are just trying to inflame my post for some reason. So I won't be responding to it.

you obviously don't know and used your Chewbacca technique of discussion when you get found out to not knowing what you're talking about.

remind me the nonsense about Germany again... :rolleyes:

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

you obviously don't know and used your Chewbacca technique of discussion when you get found out to not knowing what you're talking about. :beer:

I have already said. Without QE, banks would not be lending anywhere near what they are now. Hence the whole point of QE. To sort out an issue so that other parts of the business can continue.

Wish you would just stop trying to make a mountain out of a molehill every time i post and twist beyond belief. As for the Germany stuff, I even stated in brackets about it not being to do with houses, just an example of how pulled stimulus can effect an economy. I said nothing more than that.

stueyhants

chucky wrote: »

i'm laughing because i can and want to... is that ok with you?

no i'm not saying that 200bn has more impact than 100bn. i'm not from devon.

here's a question for you Stuart from Hants - is this money re-capitalising balance sheets, missing out balance sheets and hitting trading desks, being used to buy assets or going out on the money markets to be lent?

i'll leave it with you

I'm not claiming to be an expert on this but I was under the impression that a lot of the money was not actually getting in to the wider economy and was sitting in the BoE as captial, deposited by the main banks.

One of the nice effect of QE is the profit the banks can make by buying governement gilts one week and then getting a genrous settlement as the BoE buys the gilts back through QE shortly after.