EA makes me laugh........

StevieJ

angrypirate wrote: »

Um, i thought the discussion was around the price of a house, not the interest rates. We all know interest rates were crazy high back in 1989

I though affordability was more relevant.

angrypirate

StevieJ wrote: »

I though affordability was more relevant.

Ah, so you know where interest rates will be in 5 years time? Glad we have someone with crystal balls in this forum.

Has martin lewis changed the name of this forum to the "debate house affordability and economy" forum?

Percy1983

To compare a time when interest rates where sky high to the current rate isn't exactly apples for apples is it...

I would rather buy in a time of high interest rates as they can only go down, right now they can only go up.

StevieJ

angrypirate wrote: »

Ah, so you know where interest rates will be in 5 years time? Glad we have someone with crystal balls in this forum.

Has martin lewis changed the name of this forum to the "debate house affordability and economy" forum?

OK, what about someone who bought at the beginning of 1988, 28% of income and found themselves paying 57% of income just two years later :eek: My simple point is that it wasn't a walk in the park for the older generation like many try to make out on here.

Blacklight

My parents had a car when I was a nipper. I can't afford a brand new Merc. Therefore I am priced out of the car market.

MAKE IT BETTER FOR ME SOMEONE. DO IT NOW!

DaddyBear

StevieJ wrote: »

Is that Ellesmere Port or Prestbury?

Chester v Bradford-on-Avon. As I said, pretty much apples v apples.

the_flying_pig

Sibley wrote: »

...Jonny is my hero...

An estate agent is your hero?

Was it a toss-up between him and a traffic warden?

PhylPho

StevieJ wrote: »

OK, what about someone who bought at the beginning of 1988, 28% of income and found themselves paying 57% of income just two years later :eek: My simple point is that it wasn't a walk in the park for the older generation like many try to make out on here.

Not only is the not-too distant past misrepresented: the last not-too-distant recession is entirely glossed over as well. The firm I worked for went bust in late 1988 and I went from an £18k plus car to a bus ride to the dole office (queue 3, counter C) and £11 a week Job Seeker's Allowance. We used our savings to launch a business ourselves and, because we were already mortgage free, the bank lent us £60k with our home as equity. In 1991, we were one of many suppliers who went bust because the businesses we served went bust, owing us money. On a September day in 1992, interest rates went up (temporarily) to 15%.

We never had a chance of low interest repayments nor an enlilghetened policy about repossession (fortunately, it didn't come to that, though it took us four *years* to seel our gorgeous home that had turned, literally, into a nightmare expense). I took on three jobs, my wife, two. Between us we were able to work flat out until 1998 and get back to almost, but not quite, where we were before that last recession.

We're not angry or bitter nor certainly want anyone today to be in that kind of position but it does irritate, just a little, when people start painting the past as though it was all gain and no pain.

bendix

DaddyBear wrote: »

That's what I meant, justt trying to be subtle.

Now now now. We all know that Sibley is a liar who bigs it up by portraying himself as living the dream life in a rancid Bangkok suburb with a second-rate job, but I think it's going a bit low to disrespect his wife (even though he seems to think it impresses us that he engages in threesomes with her friend Lek occasionally, something which I suspect is also part of the Walter Mitty routine).

That he married a prostitute from some Pattaya or Bangkok bar is something one shouldn't speculate upon in polite society.

Cleaver

Sibley wrote: »

I was reading another forum and noticed that as usual a twisted group of wannabe homeowners had ganged up and were trying to get the message across that houses should fall in price.

I never realised they scanned so many news articles.

I do think some on here have extreme bull views but I'd like to ask the question. If somebody is in dire straits with no means of buying a house even if prices dropped 50%. Should they be allowed to comment on these boards?

Why? They are not in the game and cannot bring anything to the table.

I made my own mind up a while back that most of these people are just losers sniping at people more sucessful than themselves.

It was funny to see an EA with the same views as me. Boy did he put the what I call ' Hollywood Bears' in their place.

Hollywood because they act like they can afford a house when in reality they are in arrears for their bedsit.:rotfl:


Anyway, this is what the chap hit them with. He's really nailed it. Jonny is my hero. :rotfl:

It's actually got the point on this forum where amcluesent, asheron and macaque come accross as intelligent, measured, thoughtful and balanced posters compared to Sibley.

It's really, really weird to read posts like this. I just can't get my head around it.