Support grows for 70% crash

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Why not indeed.

Are the only answers I get to choose from A) crash and burn or healthy economy?

Just I feel this is slightly weighted towards giving the answer you want, i..e B

With B, you have turned me around to say what you want me to say, so you can say you are right. With answer A, I would have to be pretty stupid to want the UK to crash AND burn and you can turn round and lay in.

Maybe I should apply to Derren Brown. i think I have a knack to this whole stupid posing of questions stuff.

Of course, I would choose C. A healthy economy, where people are not priced out and HPI moves inline with inflation. Simples.

That's great Graham, but how do you get to C? Big price falls via massive levels of repossessions to address the supply issue that cause the economy to crash and burn, or a period of stagnation to allow people to catch up? Or is there another option there too?

And how does your new understanding of false dichotomy and leading questions change the questions you demanded Chucky answer? Is he allowed a new option too?

JonnyBravo

nearlynew wrote: »

Welcome to the darkside my friend.

This could be the springboard you needed to take the leap into accepting my other pearls of wisdom as the ultimate truth.

I see we have also gone for the same % on the 2010 house price poll

No, your other "pearls of wisdom" are either statements of obvious fact (debt is not wealth) or just meaningless rubbish (inflation is theft).
They seem to amuse youself so please do carry on demonstrating your intellect.

Yes, I see small gains in spring followed by drops post election as the tax hike reality starts to unfold.

But then I predicted drops this year and was wrong ,wrong, wrong. So WTFDIK!

Percy1983

Yes I can see the harm, but I still don't see why sombody should be able to keep a home they can't afford.

The way I see it is yes it may cause my tax bill to rise, but will the rise in taxes really be equal to what I will have to overpay on a mortgage right now due to prices being higher than they should?

Gorgeous_George

treliac wrote: »

Nor whether your parents will, in fact, have a house to leave when they finally depart. Govts are very adept at relieving them of their assets long beforehand. Let's hope they never need long term residential care.

Maybe best not to count your chickens before they hatch!

If I need long term residential care I will happily sell my house to pay for it. I've paid my way so far and don't expect to sponge off the taxpayer if I have the funds to look after myself. I hope that I will have the wherewithal to end it if life becomes unbearable.

My children could protect their inheritance by looking after me of course. Their choice.

GG

julieq

misskool wrote: »

But the bulls are selfish too. They want to keep house prices high so the bears don't buy.

It's all relative isn't it? Human nature is inherently selfish. They want the best for themselves, survival of the fittest is primordial, the weak will always get beaten up.

Is anyone actually going to be altruistic about their need for a house?

I don't think the first statement is quite true. Markets operate on collective self interest, that's fine, but it's not rational for a bull to want to exclude someone from the market. Bears exclude themselves on the basis they will always want further falls. If I'm arguing anything it's that bears ought to buy rather than not if they can, because much of what they believe to be just about to happen isn't likely.

I'm not a bull in any case. I just don't agree with the bears at this point in time. 2 or 3 years ago I was expecting a correction via stagnation,

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

That's great Graham, but how do you get to C? Big price falls via massive levels of repossessions to address the supply issue that cause the economy to crash and burn, or a period of stagnation to allow people to catch up? Or is there another option there too?

Orrrrr

A level out. The stagnation you are talking of.

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Orrrrr

A level out.

Nice analysis Graham.

Oh look, a shiny thing...

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

Nice analysis Graham.

Oh look, a shiny thing...

Oh look, Julie has run out of extremist scenarios so is now copying Hamish.

julieq

Nice edit too. We're in a return to trend phase now, stagnation will follow according to most of the analysis you've been arguing with. So you should be happy.

Percy1983

Falls would be great but I am more than happy with stagnation for a few years.