Age of home ownership coming to an end...

twirlypinky

PasturesNew wrote: »

So it's like one big pass the parcel, the music's stopped and if you've got one you're stuck with it - and if you haven't it's tough.

This is so true, i've never seen it put so well! I owned a couple of houses briefly with my ex husband, so for a little while there i was a home owner. Now i'm not. That's like i got to unwrap one layer and had a sweetie, but now I've had to pass it on...

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Can't have a HPC without something creating the crash. Based on history, it's almost always been greed and excess.

Based on history and statistics. Were back on course for the long term trend.
No need to crash any further, if it did, it would fuel and new period of rampant HPI.

Much better now to stay the course and follow some real term stagnation.

nembot

ISTL, there is no real history of where we are now.

Basing your predictions on something that's never happened before, is a little risky - don't you think?

nearlynew

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

No need to crash any further, if it did, it would fuel and new period of rampant HPI.

Much better now to stay the course and follow some real term stagnation.

Of course...

we couldn't possibly let prices fall below the long term average.


above the long term average is ok, but not below.

oh no, heaven forbid

IveSeenTheLight

nearlynew wrote: »

Of course...

we couldn't possibly let prices fall below the long term average.


above the long term average is ok, but not below.

oh no, heaven forbid

Of course, you want boom and bust.
You couldn't possibly want stability could you?

P.S. I never said above was ok, indeed I have shown many times on here when it was it needed to correct 22% immediately or 15% over 3 years.
I wasn;t far out was I

Dirk_Rambo

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Of course, you want boom and bust.
You couldn't possibly want stability could you?

P.S. I never said above was ok, indeed I have shown many times on here when it was it needed to correct 22% immediately or 15% over 3 years.
I wasn;t far out was I

hi mr stalker, i hope your well :hello:

IveSeenTheLight

Dirk_Rambo wrote: »

hi mr [STRIKE]stalker[/STRIKE] Prooved I (Dirk Rambo)Was Speaking Crap , i hope your well :hello:

sorted that for you

I noticed youv'e recently changed tack from claiming prices are tanking round your way to simply thanking / commenting that bearish posts are good.
Your becoming the verbal version of rewired

carolt

Cleaver wrote: »

Of course the price of an asset class can be a good or bad thing. Foodstuffs are assets and I believe you can trade and speculate on the prices of oranges, milk, wheat, oils, coffee etc., things that people need on a daily basis. If the supply of all of these things contracted and the price substatially went up then what you'd have is 'good' and 'bad'. 'Good' for the (relatively) few people who deal in these commodities and pretty awfully 'bad' for the majority who rely on these things to live. Therefore, the price of the asset is 'good' and 'bad'.

Taking the same approach to houses, if you asked the general public whether it's a good or bad thing whether there's becoming a two tier society of 'haves' and 'have nots' when it comes to property, as you put it, most would say that this is a bad thing. I know you wouldn't, but the majority of people would.

As much as you say a house is an asset like any other, it clearly isn't. Sure, they go up and down in the same way, they are subject to the same supply and demand rules and you can therefore treat them the same way if you wish. But most people still see the primary reason for owning a house as somewhere to live, with the secondary reason sometimes to make money (BTLers, speculators or just homeowners who want to make money). Therefore they are a different asset class because they are viewed as such by the vast majority of people. Just not you.

Sorry, not read all the thread - but top post, Cleaver.
On why Hamish and those like him are immoral or at best amoral in cheering on a process of depriving others of essential necessities.

I daresay watching people starve when wheat prices rise this winter will have him in veritable raptures. :mad:

IveSeenTheLight

carolt wrote: »

Sorry, not read all the thread - but top post, Cleaver.
On why Hamish and those like him are immoral or at best amoral in cheering on a process of depriving others of essential necessities.

I daresay watching people starve when wheat prices rise this winter will have him in veritable raptures. :mad:

Hamish doesn't cheer on a process of depriving others.
He's pointed out many times that those wishing for a crash are doing so.
Reason being that credit tightens and fewer people have the access to credit thus less likely they can purchase a property.
We could then debate that those cheering on a crash are immoral.

Have you in a round about way described yourself as immoral?

GDB2222

I remember, at the height of the Japanese property bubble, the Chairman of Sony saying that he would just have to keep on renting as he couldn't afford to buy his home. Of course, prices tumbled after that. It was just silly. The Japanese economy never recovered from that asset bubble - it wasn't just property. The Chinese are trying to rein in their property bubble. Let's see if they are more successful.