British House Prices Probably Won’t Fall This Year, RICS Says

nembot

This thread, like 99% of all others posted by the bullish in the last five weeks just screams desperation.

Ya cannae break the law of physics captain...

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh right. You think me ASKING YOU what was normal and saying I don't think normal can be based on pre bust levels of 2003 onwards was me saying those levels are normal?
.

You defined normal.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL.

It's a SIMPLE question. How is this "normal" transaction level going to be achieved? Are we all suddenly going to just get richer overnight, to be able to support those transaction levels WITHOUT the products enabling us to do so?

Remember, normal was defined as the stuff pre bust..

Forgetful are we?

So the article????????????

Really2

stueyhants wrote: »

I wouldn't worry Graham, any sane person reading this thread can see what a reasonable question you asked. The responses from the usual suspects is pretty much par for the course.

What answering the question then GD back tracking saying he never said 2003 on or "pre bust" was normal?

So I take the answer was not to your liking, do you not think transactions will get back to around 85,000 per month a couple of years or so after the recession has finished?.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

What answering the question then GD back tracking saying he never said 2003 on or "pre bust" was normal?

So I take the answer was not to your liking, do you not think transactions will get back to around 85,000 per month a couple of years or so after the recession has finished?.

You can go on.

I asked you what normal was twice. "Normal" to most of us here means before the boom in general. As you did not answer what normal was, I stated it was defined on pre bust levels, as how else could it be defined. You only answered what "normal" was 2 pages later, at a level of 85k, which I doubt anyone would have guessed was your PERSONAL definition of normality.

I could only guess that normality, as you wouldn't tell us, was the last decade.

You are completely ignoring that post in all this finger pointing at me backtracking and solely picking up on one line that suits you at the moment. The post before that however, explains why I said that.

You seem to want the argument, so I have already said, I'm up for it. I'm sure chucky be delighted to join in with you.

stueyhants

Really2 wrote: »

What answering the question then GD back tracking saying he never said 2003 on or "pre bust" was normal?

So I take the answer was not to your liking, do you not think transactions will get back to around 85,000 per month a couple of years or so after the recession has finished?.

You started the argument before GD even mentioned 2003. GD simply asked what was normal. You failed to answer this and called him hysterical. It took two pages of pointless bickering for you to produce the chart and a reasoned argument, why did you feel the need to start an argument where one didn't exist ?

As for my position, I don't think we will hit the previous approval figures because there isn't enough money in the system (funding shortfalls, government crowding out etc). However that doesn't go to say prices will fall as the levels of approvals to support prices is much lower currently.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You can go on.

I asked you what normal was twice. "Normal" to most of us here means before the boom in general. As you did not answer what normal was, I stated it was defined on pre bust levels, as how else could it be defined. You only answered what "normal" was 2 pages later, at a level of 85k,

I wasn't logged on it always make a response a tad more difficult.

Anyway the article???????

Pete111

ninky wrote: »

over a glass of chardonnay.....will those bleeding sw london dinner party classes ever shut up about house prices!!

stagnation? yes please.

Goodness no.

Viognier maybe, but Chardonnay? Please.....

Really2

stueyhants wrote: »

You started the argument before GD even mentioned 2003. GD simply asked what was normal. You failed to answer this and called him hysterical.

Selective reading again.

Back to page 1 and READ.

Really2 wrote: »

We will be well out of recession before base rate hits pre crash levels IMHO.
Should be a fairly normal market then.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What's normal?
100 - 125% mortgages? Because that's what this "normality" was based on before the crash.
I don't think that's coming back.

Really2 wrote: »

Transaction levels and type of transactions (EG less repos more job security etc) no mention of mortgages.
You can come across a bit hysterical some times GD.

I was saying bringing in 100%+ mortgages was hysterical as we all no they will not be back for years possibly never.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was also saying I think transaction levels are not currently near historical norms/averages and that is compleatlly true!!!!!!

You guys sure know how to make a mess of a thread by just making stuff up!!!!!!!!!!!!

chucky

Really2 wrote: »

Selective reading again.

leave it Really - Graham has done what he always does.
for the sake of the thread it's not worth it - we all know what he's like.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

leave it Really - Graham has done what he always does.

Yer, asked a question, which has totally flumoxed you both. Apologies.