We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Single house price index 'should be introduced'
Comments
-
Sorry for believing in fact rather than fiction.
Obviously I'm a mentalist for living in reality.
You're just coming across as a bit simple.
Comparing the existance of God to the validity of a house price report is beyond the realms of sensible debate. And I think you probably know that.0 -
You're just coming across as a bit simple.
Comparing the existance of God to the validity of a house price report is beyond the realms of sensible debate. And I think you probably know that.
If you cant understand the concept of peer review. I'm not going to bother any more.
It's like having an argument with a deaf person.0 -
If you cant understand the concept of peer review. I'm not going to bother any more.
It's like having an argument with a deaf person.
Of course I understand a peer review, I've written papers myself that have been peer reviewed.
Let's break this down. You're saying that these reports are completely useless because they aren't peer reviewed, and went on to compare the validity of these reports to the existance of a mythical being, such as God. This is silly for two reasons:
1) We all know that these reports pretty much represent the UK housing market in one way or another and, in a strange way, the public 'peer review' these reports. When I see the reports they seems to feel about right to me, in that the ups and downs seem to corrolate with the ups and downs I see before my own eyes, and the prices seem to equate roughly with what people see in their areas.
2) You've made a leap from seeing something that isn't peer reviewed to deciding, because of this, that it's completely useless. Why? By all means criticise the report for not being peer reviewed, but there are plently of things that aren't peer reviewed that are still useful and valid.0 -
Of course I understand a peer review, I've written papers myself that have been peer reviewed.
Let's break this down. You're saying that these reports are completely useless because they aren't peer reviewed, and went on to compare the validity of these reports to the existance of a mythical being, such as God. This is silly for two reasons:
1) We all know that these reports pretty much represent the UK housing market in one way or another and, in a strange way, the public 'peer review' these reports. When I see the reports they seems to feel about right to me, in that the ups and downs seem to corrolate with the ups and downs I see before my own eyes, and the prices seem to equate roughly with what people see in their areas.
2) You've made a leap from seeing something that isn't peer reviewed to deciding, because of this, that it's completely useless. Why? By all means criticise the report for not being peer reviewed, but there are plently of things that aren't peer reviewed that are still useful and valid.
I'm not saying they are right or wrong. Just that they are invalid.
However if you use something that may be 'useful and valid' but is without review, your own data/ideas also become invalid.
I'll give you a good example of this.
University lad (while I was there) was doing a PHD in natural lauguage processing using neural networks. After 6 months of computation 'grind' he came to his 'answer'. Two days later the pentium bug hit, which invalidated his thesis. Another 6 months later he got the same 'answer'. Although the original answer was correct it was still invalid until reproven.
All I'm saying is don't believe what you are told until there is backing. Not that I'm some David Ike nut case, just that I come from the world of science. A place where the grey area is theory and facts are hard to come by. Assumption is always the death of science.0 -
I'm not saying they are right or wrong.
That's exactly what you did. Here you go:No, I'm claiming they have nothing to do with 'average' house/home values.
By saying that an average house price report has 'nothing to do with average house / home values' I'm fairly sure you're making a judgement call that they're wrong.Just that they are invalid.
'Invalid' is a really strange word to use. Invalid for what purpose and to whom? Your original description is best: that they aren't peer reviewed. This is correct and it'd be nice if they were, but that doesn't mean that they are invalid.All I'm saying is don't believe what you are told until there is backing. Not that I'm some David Ike nut case, just that I come from the world of science. A place where the grey area is theory and facts are hard to come by. Assumption is always the death of science.
We're not talking about the theory of relativity here. The Nationwide publish their methodology on their website, is this not enough for you to just conclude that although they're never going to be completely accurate, they are accurate enough to get a basic idea of where house prices are.0 -
Aggggghhhh,
I reference you to... "Correlation does not imply causation"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
I'm finishing 'work' now. We can pick up tomorrow is you wish?0 -
It's none of the government's business if private companies want to publish their own statistics.Please stay safe in the sun and learn the A-E of melanoma: A = asymmetry, B = irregular borders, C= different colours, D= diameter, larger than 6mm, E = evolving, is your mole changing? Most moles are not cancerous, any doubts, please check next time you visit your GP.
0 -
If God ever existed, he would have given us all free houses to stop this complete claptrap of who can be the first to post the most purile, insular, sensationalist, press cutting on the latest miniscule analysis of how house prices might have moved in the last hour.
In the last half hour of trading, Ftse went up 18 points to 5888. That's 306 points per 8½ hour session. Nine sessions left this year means 2,754 points. So FTSE will end the year at 8,640.
Fact!
Gin & Tonics all round....0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards