Recession finally hits the white hot property market of Aberdeen

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

carolt wrote: »

Post no 39 - "The family members of anyone who will leave an inheritance," are acc to you, better off with HPI.

The FACT is that those who will inherit a house are better off with HPI in the long run.

Irrespective of any other factors in their lives. Like wanting to buy before their relatives have all pegged it.

Your interpretation, not mine.

I specifically stated that FTB's want lower prices. Thats obvious. Until the point after they have bought, in which case they too benefit from HPI.

I never stated, as you claimed, that people would be overjoyed at inheritance, in some ghoulish way.

carolt

Out of interest, Hamish, I reported your post, hamish. You can perfectly well write the same post without the stupid last sentence.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Actually, prices did not rise at a steady level in the past.



As for bubbles, well they do seem to be an inherent part of the housing cycle over the long term....And not just this one. But just as the peaks are above long term trend, so the troughs are below it....

But prices today are right on the long term mean trend line.

If your argument is that society would be better if bubbles did not happen and prices only rose by the long term trend, inflation plus 2.9% per annum, I would not disagree with you.

What so many people on here fail to realise though, is that house prices prior to the latest boom were not normal, they were abnormally cheap.

Here is a graph showing the house price history of a basket of major countries, the UK's house prices were far below the average throughout much of the last trough, and did not climb as far as others during the boom either.

I see nobody has come up with a remotely credible or reasoned argument for why this doesn't hold true yet......

bernard_shaw

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

.... the horrific consequences to the economy of falling prices over the last 2 years.

Nice to have that explained. You should tell someone.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

carolt wrote: »

Out of interest, Hamish, I reported your post, hamish. You can perfectly well write the same post without the stupid last sentence.

Ooooh, touchy..... I've deleted the offending comment.

I still think you're nuts though for inventing statements like that. Not to mention a raving hypocrite for reporting me to the mods over a joke after accusing me of being ghoulish and wanting people to die.

Grow up....

Emy1501

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The same poll suggests the majority do not want hpc, and that poll was taken before the majority of the crash happened. Only 28% wanted prices to fall back then. I'd suggest it may be less now that they have seen the horrific consequences to the economy of falling prices over thelast 2 years.

Whereas everyone else, 70% or so in that poll, wants prices to stay the same or rise.

Funnily enough, I suggested rising prices benefit the majority, and that falling prices only benefit a minority. I have no problem with accepting that stable or rising prices benefit the vast majority..... if that makes you feel better.

You however would not seem too happy about the concept of prices remaining at todays levels or higher..... As the majority want.

Only 22% wanted prices to rise so more people wanted prices to fall than rise. You claimed houseprice rises are good for 70% of the population I have asked for evidence to support and you have not provided any.

I have no problems with prices remaining stable. I have no problems with them going higher as long as people buying can afford to buy and as long as the public sector are not going to pick up the problem when people cannot pay because of greed as we are seeing now. Once the economy is on a sound footing and the government is not underpinning prices with all their schemes then i have no problem where prices go.

The reality is though is that between 2006-2008 1 in 10 people were 2 months behind or more with debt repayment so its simple fact that we were heading for disater before the credit crunch.

ess0two

carolt wrote: »

I don't really care what prices do as I'm not planning to buy anytime soon.

But this isn't really about me, is it?

Good fun to try to make it about me, though isn't it.

Takes people's minds off the tosh.

You've always got the most to say,considering you aint buying?

ThrowingStonesAtYou

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

it's not even that..... It's just that 1975, and 47K (in real terms), is as far back as the Nationwides dataset goes.

As for your little neagtive prices in the 30's comment, why don't you have a quick think about the answer before I have to explain it and humiliate you...:rolleyes:

Ah right... so now you admit that theres hundreds of years worth of data missing, but based on the short amount of time you have data for you want to label one interpretation of that data as a long term trend even though it makes no sense for it to be :rotfl:

And yes I'll grant you theres a slight curve in the line that I missed (because it is so slight), but it still appears to suggest prices to have been round about the zero mark for a very long time :rolleyes:

Seriously, just drop the graph;)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I'll tell you what, you go to the trouble of googling the numbers of people in the above categories and prove me wrong.

To be honest, I can't really be bothered, because the statistics are probably not there, or are unreliable, open to debate etc etc. What can't be denied though, is there is one group overwhelmingly bigger than all the apparent beneficiarys of HPI, and that is the current under 18s and those yet to be born. There can be no sensible argument that HPI at the apparent 'long term trend' :rotfl: level is going to benefit them, and there's a lot more of them than there is over 18s who are still alive.

Pobby

Prices should have never got so out of control. Why did Brown say that he would never let the housing market get out of control again, if he didn`t want potential voters to turn their backs on Nu Labour?

Lower prices? Yes please.

Give our kids something to aspire to without having to sacrifice a lot of their income in housing. Lower prices, yes it would follow lower rents. Think of the billions us tax payers would save in not paying so much housing benefit. Just a couple of points but then again, can`t be bothered to argue.

Imho, the country took a very back ward step in freezing out so many from home ownership putting many in the hands of private land lords. Shocking!

damanpunk

This thread shows up the worst of this forum.

People happy at job losses (in the oil industry) because it means that they may potentially get one up on Hamish. !!!!!!, spare a thought for the people who've been made redundant and forget the games for a day.

People seem to take great glory on here with schadenfreude directed at the bankers and the oil industry, this country would be in a far worse state without either.