Guardian takes on VI's.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Am I?

Expand.

You post on a forum about house prices could be you last clue to VI status.

No problem with the article but it is not just one side who have a VI, and both use opposite excuses.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

You post on a forum about house prices could be you last clue to VI status.

No problem with the article but it is not just one side who have a VI, and both use opposite excuses.

Ahhh, so now were completely ignoring "what I said" (but actually didnt, though sounded good),and were back to the "yer but no, you post on a forum, YOU ARE a VI!".

DervProf

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's really not. It was a good article. Points very hard to refute. Surveyors looking stupid. Amsuingly written tounge in cheek stuff aimed at surveyors.

It is a good article, an interesting one. I used it to start a thread "What causes HPI".

If rampant HPI had been on the back of a solid economy (not based on a large increase in credit), hadn`t been aided by less than honest borrowing/lending practices, and had not taken the banks to the edge of collapse, I would certainly welcome it, and wouldn`t be here posting my observations and opinions. I tend to look beyond "HPI = good, and it`s all about supply and demand".

chucky

DervProf wrote: »

It is a good article, an interesting one. I used it to start a thread "What causes HPI".

If rampant HPI had been on the back of a solid economy (not based on a large increase in credit), hadn`t been aided by less than honest borrowing/lending practices, and had not taken the banks to the edge of collapse, I would certainly welcome it, and wouldn`t be here posting my observations and opinions. I tend to look beyond "HPI = good, and it`s all about supply and demand".

every market is about supply and demand - what components determine the supply and or demand is a function of the market.

trying to blame it on fraud is an opinion and not a fact

Generali

chucky wrote: »

every market is about supply and demand - what components determine the supply and or demand is a function of the market.

In 99% of markets there just isn't anything else. The only exceptions really are a price ceiling or floor being set that stops equilibrium being found. The minimum wage is an example in many low paid sections of the job market currently which is why you get these stories of thousands of people applying for some cra ppy job.

the_flying_pig

Generali wrote: »

In 99% of markets there just isn't anything else. The only exceptions really are a price ceiling or floor being set that stops equilibrium being found...

Agreed, although it’s not quite as simple as that for all stuff e.g. firms sometimes, er, they do introductory discounts and things, don’t they and, er, well, you know, they do stuff like sell those nice gilette razors really cheap & shaft you later on the blades. But basically, supply and demand have in some sense determined the price of almost every good or service that's ever been sold other than where prices have been artificially set by government or whoever.

The shame here is that the journo draws a false distinction between “demand” and “how much money the lenders are willing to advance”. He misses the key point that, for residential pwoperdee, the amount of money lenders are willing to advance is exactly the same thing as "demand" or is at least the principal component of it.

DervProf

chucky wrote: »

every market is about supply and demand - what components determine the supply and or demand is a function of the market.

trying to blame it on fraud is an opinion and not a fact

Both true.

It`s the components that are at the heart of what I like to debate. It is my opinion that fraud had some part to play in HPI (as does the media), and to a degree probably still does (if there is any HPI).

If you simply want to debate facts, the debate becomes boring, or just an argument over which facts are true or not. I look at the big picture, taking facts and other opinions into consideration, then form my own opinion. I then voice my opinion and will obviously try to defend it. It doesn`t mean that I believe that my opinion is 100% correct, and it doesn`t mean that I won`t change it.

I`m not here to prove a point, or to line my own pocket (as some others appear to be). I`m here to air some of my opinions and ideas, and I hope that some people will listen, then agree or disagree with me.

Generali

the_flying_pig wrote: »

Agreed, although it’s not quite as simple as that for all stuff e.g. firms sometimes, er, they do introductory discounts and things, don’t they and, er, well, you know, they do stuff like sell those nice gilette razors really cheap & shaft you later on the blades. But basically, supply and demand have in some sense determined the price of almost every good or service that's ever been sold other than where prices have been artificially set by government or whoever.

The shame here is that the journo draws a false distinction between “demand” and “how much money the lenders are willing to advance”. He misses the key point that, for residential pwoperdee, the amount of money lenders are willing to advance is exactly the same thing as "demand" or is at least the principal component of it.

If a company thinks they can gain an advantage by discounting they will discount. I'd be interested to hear your views on how razors are priced and rationed if not by price in a pretty simple supply and demand model. You seem dubious although sarcasm doesn't always come across well in the written word.

Demand is the number of items willing and able to be bought at any given price. In the UK housing market as many houses are financed in part with mortgages then I agree absolutely that mortgage availability will be a key component of what people can pay of thus of demand.

Linton

DervProf wrote: »

Both true.

It`s the components that are at the heart of what I like to debate. It is my opinion that fraud had some part to play in HPI (as does the media), and to a degree probably still does (if there is any HPI).

If you simply want to debate facts, the debate becomes boring, or just an argument over which facts are true or not. I look at the big picture, taking facts and other opinions into consideration, then form my own opinion. I then voice my opinion and will obviously try to defend it. It doesn`t mean that I believe that my opinion is 100% correct, and it doesn`t mean that I won`t change it.

I`m not here to prove a point, or to line my own pocket (as some others appear to be). I`m here to air some of my opinions and ideas, and I hope that some people will listen, then agree or disagree with me.

I dont see how an argument with one side based on facts and the other on opinions with no factual basis can ever come to a useful conclusion. In fact I dont see how it can ever get away from the initial skirmishing.

Wouldnt it be more constructive to accept that supply and demand controls HPI and then move forward.

Where we can move forward is to understand what drives supply and what drives demand. This is where things get more interesting because it is difficult to get hold of the facts.

This is where your media-driven mass hysteria opinion comes in. Not as an alternative hypothesis to supply and demand but as part of the explanation of it.

the_flying_pig

Generali wrote: »

If a company thinks they can gain an advantage by discounting they will discount. I'd be interested to hear your views on how razors are priced and rationed if not by price in a pretty simple supply and demand model...

Well, no, I agree that 'supply and demand' is always key, I was just cautioning against applying about it in the very simplest of terms, i.e. assuming that firms are always looking to maximise profits in the immediate term...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freebie_marketing