The absolute fallacy of the average bull argument.

geneer

geneer wrote: »

:rotfl:No thanks spamish. But feel free to contact ASPC if you believe they are mistaken.




Gosh, imagine using a smaller subset of the larger average to clearly and decisively demonstrate one of the salient points of my argument.

What am i like!



The last 100 posts? Really? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Sorry Hamish, but are you suggesting that we should use house price statistics for the whole of the earth, or for the two flats to either side of you, to assess whether house prices have changed up your way?

annnnnnnnnnndd...Hamish loses interest in the discussion in hand.

Who could have seen that one coming. :rotfl:

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

Because I selected an example which clearly illustrated my point.

Thanks for posting blunt global averages again though.
In the context of this discussion, you've clearly proven......erm, what exactly? :rotfl:



Sigh. Thats an amazing grasp of the obvious you've got there.

I do love how "aberdeen city centre" has become a small subset.

For arguments sake, I'm sure that if someone's had to take a £10K loss on their house sale, or finds they have to pay through the nose when remortgaging because they no longer have enough equity to qualify for decent rates....well I'm sure they will sleep better knowing that the overall average for all property types in a large geographic area might not paint quite as bad a picture as they find themselves in.

You obviously cannot conceive that when you compare the subset data, some areas you can't directly compare as there are no figures for that quarter.

Clearly this down to such small transaction levels that some quarters may not have sales in that subset data to show.

Potentially therefore you could be comparing one individual property with another. Not really the best set of criteria to get your knickers in a twist over.

But I'll leave you to do that as it makes you happy.
Froth over the small transaction levels or even non entity transactions as you think it means more than it does.

If you compare with the ROSEA data, which shows much more detail

In December ROSEA recorded overall for Aberdeen transaction levels of 387.
It's quite possible in your subset data that there could be no sales in the quarter.

Happy frothing

nembot

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The salient points.

To be fair Hamish, the locations experiencing rises are few and far between - the last 6 months trend has been down and market factors suggest this isn't going to stop soon, even vested interests are talking the market down.

Aberdeen prices are not indicative of the rest of the market, you're lucky to live in an area literally kept afloat by oil. The rest of the country isn't as resilient and many areas have seen massive drops, this isn't anecdotal or just an observation, but cold hard fact.

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You obviously cannot conceive that when you compare the subset data, some areas you can't directly compare as there are no figures for that quarter.

Clearly this down to such small transaction levels that some quarters may not have sales in that subset data to show.

Potentially therefore you could be comparing one individual property with another. Not really the best set of criteria to get your knickers in a twist over.

But I'll leave you to do that as it makes you happy.
Froth over the small transaction levels or even non entity transactions as you think it means more than it does.

If you compare with the ROSEA data, which shows much more detail

In December ROSEA recorded overall for Aberdeen transaction levels of 387.
It's quite possible in your subset data that there could be no sales in the quarter.

Happy frothing

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Listen to the squeal of tortured logic in that boss-eyed rationalisation.

Looks like rather obvious undeniable point still stands.

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Listen to the squeal of tortured logic in that boss-eyed rationalisation.

Looks like rather obvious undeniable point still stands.

Whatever geneer.
Let me know when you want to make a salient point and you can try to discuss the details.

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Whatever geneer.
Let me know when you want to make a salient point and you can try to discuss the details.

I refer you to my previous salient points lite.;)

You know, the ones you chose to ignore and instead keep spamming the thread with the same graph again and again.

geneer

Rinoa wrote: »

Indeed, when you add on 5 years rent it's:




...plus a further £30k or so.

Hiya Rinoa/Columbo,

Gosh. I really wouldn't have expected you to make the same banal comment that you've made 2, 3 times a week for at least the last 3 years. You delight us with your originality.

Anyhow, You seem to have "forgotten" where our "conversation" ended up.
Allow me to refresh your memory.



You must remember this. The quotes assigned to you are essentially verbatim after all. :rotfl:

Anyway, little up date, according to ESPC's rolling 3 month average (Columbo's prefered measure of course), I've now "lost" £9620.
Apparently.

Doesn't have the same ring as £60K does it old feller.

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

I refer you to my previous salient points lite.;)

You know, the ones you chose to ignore and instead keep spamming the thread with the same graph again and again.

You've not referred anything.

Make your point succintly if you believe you have one and I'll happily make a reply comment to it.

Rinoa

geneer wrote: »

Anyway, little up date, according to ESPC's rolling 3 month average (Columbo's prefered measure of course), I've now "lost" £9620.
Apparently.

Doesn't have the same ring as £60K does it old feller.

We're all well aware of your creative accounting abilities. I'm being unduly generous with the minus £40k.

Strictly speaking if you'd bought 10 years ago when you were 28, as many 28 year olds did at the time, prices were £101,000 cheaper than this weeks ESPC report.

Your landlord must be delighted.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You've not referred anything.

Make your point succintly if you believe you have one and I'll happily make a reply comment to it.

Just like you didn't before you mean.
Give over Lite. No ones falling for your smokescreen.