House prices seen as overvalued

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

you're obviously one of the 'others'

To be honest, that part of your post made no sense....i fear you tried to get a little too technical on yourself.

You put across 2 camps. Those that can afford and those that can't. Those 2 camps make up 100% on their own. Can or can't. Theres no real inbetween here.

"The others" as you call them, is your own little, empty, fantasy camp.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And here we are again. Back to the downright obvious. Houses are unaffordable to those who cannot afford them.

Chucky, did you collect your Nobel prize?

You must admit that all houses that sell aren’t unaffordable

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

To be honest, that part of your post made no sense....i fear you tried to get a little too technical on yourself.

You put across 2 camps. Those that can afford and those that can't. Those 2 camps make up 100% on their own. Can or can't. Theres no real inbetween here.

"The others" as you call them, is your own little, empty, fantasy camp.

now, now don't confuse yourself - it's not that complicated. the "others" are the losers.

those that have made mistakes and then blame others for their misfortunes - those that gambled large amounts of money, lost it and then say that they can't afford to buy.
i'm sure you know what i'm talking about...

Emy1501

Suggestions are prices are overvalued and as Mr King and Mr Cable have been saying they are since about 2004 and Mr Clarke on Question Time said they were last week I will take it they are.

Also got think if they are not overpriced why all this need for shared ownership etc for people earning up to 60K! 60K is way past the average household income.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

now, now don't confuse yourself - it's not that complicated. the "others" are the losers.

those that have made mistakes and then blame others for their misfortunes - those that gambled large amounts of money, lost it and then say that they can't afford to buy.
i'm sure you know what i'm talking about...

Um, the ones where houses are unaffordable to them and therefore they fall into the first group?

Actually, I'll admit, I'm obviously wrong here, as I simply don't get chucky world where theres 3 groups for 2 sets of people

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Um, the ones where houses are unaffordable to them and therefore they fall into the first group?

Actually, I'll admit, I'm obviously wrong here, as I simply don't get chucky world where theres 3 groups for 2 sets of people

you're posting rollox again Graham :T:T

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

you're posting rollox again Graham :T:T

I'm well aware.

It's polite on a forum to discuss with the other poster on a level they may understand. Clearly, this isn;t working!

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm well aware.

It's polite on a forum to discuss with the other poster on a level they may understand. Clearly, this isn;t working!

it's become extremely tedious and difficult to discuss anything with an intellectual juggernaut like yourself

GDB2222

I vividly remember back in 1999 someone patiently explaining to me that it was perfectly sensible that dot com startup companies were worth billions. What he didn't know was that I had started a dot com company and I knew just how easy it was. He lost a packet of course, and I sold out (not to him, my conscience is clear).

Now, I have deja vu, as people patiently explain to me why property prices are perfectly sensible and the paradigm-shift required to justify current prices is fine.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Would have been good if prices had done that since 2000.

Would have made the average price approx £130,000 now, and solved many of the problems we have today.

May not have een had such a bad crash and such a bad defecit due to it.

Why choose 2000?
That was the same price as it was in 1988
Indeed, it was 2002 before prices returned to the previous peak of 1989.

So please justify why 2000 is the magic year in which inflation adjusted rises should.