House prices expected to fall - Official

davilown

Really2 wrote: »

What ! So perhaps we need more graphs to muddle nominal and "real Term" falls.
What informed choice do you need to make when looking at a graph? which one is Y and which one is X?

I was answering a point set by a user, you seem to be joining in the muddle side of it. I stand by what I said on the point he was making.

Thanks all the same.

I was not talking about nominal and real term falls, I was merely commenting on the point that you said statistical data can only be interpreted one way on a graph.

Really2

davilown wrote: »

I was not talking about nominal and real term falls, I was merely commenting on the point that you said statistical data can only be interpreted one way on a graph.

No I said.

Really2 wrote: »

No, there is only one way to view a graph. But some people may not understand what the data means.
If they are they don't understand in general they are wrong.
It is not like a piece of art and how you interpret it, it is a graphical representation of statistical information.

There are many ways to represent statistical information. But there is only one correct way to read the information on it.

I can't argue house prices fell 40% in the 80's/90s in nominal terms based on the nationwide "Real Terms" graph can I. (like GD once)

Thus like I said the main reason for drawing the wrong conclution from a graph is not understanding what the data plotted means.

davilown

On a separate note, can anyone tell me what the effects of a gradually increasing underlying core inflation will have on the economy over the next 6-12 months?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10611668.stm

davilown

Really2 wrote: »

No I said.



There are many ways to represent statistical information. But there is only one correct way to read the information on it.

I can't argue house prices fell 40% in the 80's/90s in nominal terms based on the nationwide "Real Terms" graph can I. (like GD once)

Ok, perhaps we should agree to disagree as I'm not going to post endlessly on the same topic. I've put my point across and that'll do.

Harry_Powell

davilown wrote: »

Ok, perhaps we should agree to disagree as I'm not going to post endlessly on the same topic. I've put my point across and that'll do.

Wow, how many times have we wished Devon would say that. Well done Sir for spotting the futility of arguing on an internet forum!

Really2

davilown wrote: »

Ok, perhaps we should agree to disagree as I'm not going to post endlessly on the same topic. I've put my point across and that'll do.

Ditto.....;)

System

I think there's a confusion here around "interpreting"

Interpreting what the graph is teling us has happened, and interpreting what it means for the future are 2 different things.

Llubrevlis

carolt wrote: »

It's everywhere.

Poor Hamish.

Its ok he is so blind, next he will be saying he said all along that house prices will fall.

torontoboy45

Harry_Powell wrote: »

I love the number of sockies that come out of the woodwork when I make a deflamatory statement. Anyone would think I deliberately made an appalling accusation just to see how many appeared. It's a bit like banging on a stepping stone and watching all the creepy-crawlies come running out to see what the fuss is.

I retract my earlier statement about bruises. I'm sure that carolt's kids are untouched - she's far too busy on here with her carolt and numerous other identities to waste on her family, positively or negatively.

I wonder when jojill and that other jo identity will make an apearance, then we'll have the full set. :rotfl:

p.s. I can see why carolt and devon create all the fuss on MSE, it's an amazing rush being in the middle of a post whirlwind! Stop it now though, I'm not as needy as the above mentioned posters. Back to a quiet life on the boards for me now.

wonderful. truly wonderful.

in the space of a few hrs you've gone from child abuse to child neglect.

that hole isn't getting any smaller, mate.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Silly MSE. Silly press association. Silly RICs.

Claiming falls when actually its rises in real terms apparently, says hamish. But it's actually stagnantion says really2. It's falls if you listen to RICs, but if you muffle out the falls bit they drivvel on about, they do talk about rises in london, so it's actually rises if you listen to RICs. But it could be stangation, so to cover all bases, it's wise to talk about real terms and bananas.

Press assosiation....such amatuers. I'm surprised they don't mention any of this. As for MSE putting this up as a story....scaremongerers.

I had to have look who thanked that load of garbage