Nominal vs Real House Price Cycles

JonnyBravo

Doctor_Gloom wrote: »

Yet another mcTavish thread but the same old nonsense. Life must be rather dull in Aberdeen

Indeed but no more than wherever you live dull ol' Doctor Gloom.
Toddle off and do your thanking bit now please.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

A whole page of responses, and not one bear wants to discuss what is clearly an uncomfortable truth for them.

Nominal price falls have historically been far lower than 'real' falls. And 'real' falls won't be helping them this time as wages aren't keeping up.

System

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

A whole page of responses, and not one bear wants to discuss what is clearly an uncomfortable truth for them.

Because it would involve a moderate amount of intelligence. Much easier to just create a few more accounts like our "special" DoctorDowneyGloom

FATBALLZ

Yeah I tend to agree with this, the government will use inflation to hide lower real prices, so we can have a mini-crash without anybody really noticing.

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

A whole page of responses, and not one bear wants to discuss what is clearly an uncomfortable truth for them....

not really mate cos it's the same old !!!!! from you, innit?

if anyone tries to get really robust or balanced you won't post any more on the thread but will trot the exact same material out again on another thread, perhaps in a slightly different form if we're lucky, within the space of a few hours/days/weeks.

houses are very, very cheap and we should all buy as many as possible, i kind of get the message by now.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Yeah I tend to agree with this, the government will use inflation to hide lower real prices, so we can have a mini-crash without anybody really noticing.

So how exactly is it a "mini-crash" when house prices rise, the costs of everything else rise more, and wages don't keep up with either?

Fairly sure the chocolate bar to house price ratio doesn't count....;)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Because it would involve a moderate amount of intelligence. Much easier to just create a few more accounts like our "special" DoctorDowneyGloom

Very true. I see we have another classic example in post 16.

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Very true. I see we have another classic example in post 16.

ok hamish, just quickly i'll give a substantive response to your first post, step by step.

1 - you observe that recent [2008] nominal house price falls were unprecedented in the UK. as a statement of fact this is, of course, correct.

2 - you [possibly, i'm not sure] imply from the above that the bears were jolly lucky to see the nominal falls that they did see & that they certainly won't be getting any more. i think that your reasoning comes later in the OP or perhaps in one of the other dozens of similar threads you've started in the last year or so, i'm not sure it matters which?

3 - you mention [not, i suspect, for the first time on here in a relatively short space of time] that the OBR has recently forecast rising house prices. as a statement of fact this is correct. although it's worth mentioning, of course, that we have seen many other up-to-date forecasts, some predicting nominal increases, others nominal decreases. perhaps you're implying that the OBR forecasts are uniquely, or at least unusually, robust? you don't say so though and, given the opacity of their forecasting methods, i think that's probably for the best.

4 - after some slightly aimless snippets about wages you finish by asking "So now that the crash is over (minor fluctuations still possible, seasonal, etc), and the forecasts for both real, nominal, and versus wages growth are swinging against you, the question for the housing bears would be what credible argument do you have left" so there we are, the substance, as far as i can see, of your post is: (1) a reminder, for the gazillionth time, that nominal UK house price falls have historically been rare; and (2) a reminder that a recent forecast predicts nominal increases. maybe i'm missing something but what part of the above do you think urgently begs a detailed response? isn't this kind of the same old ground really? the main bear argument is very high prices relative to incomes/rents, the main bull arguments are [etc], you hope and/or think the latter are more important, the bears hope and/or think that the former are more important? i just think it's a bit odd the way you seem to think this new thread has slashed through some kind of pwoperdee gordion knot, it just seems like more of the same to me...

phil_b_2

The bears are biting hard at this one hehe

twadge_face

Crikey!