What will Mervyns excuse be this time?

Graham_Devon

This is getting silly, and seems to have reverted back to anyone who would like to see a balanced economy, as being labelled as wanting people pushed out of their homes, wanting punishment for those that have homes etc etc etc.

I'm not sure if this is a way of simply dampening the debate, or whether people can actually take that from what's said, and considering it all seems to stem from what AD said, I'm a little confused as to how it's ended up this way.

As Grant Shapps said on lending, the pendulum has swung too far the other way.....the pendulum has also swung to far with interest rates, for too long, hence the pound reacting favourably when there is the feeling of interest rate rises, and falling when those feelings are wiped away.

It's not about wanting people out on the streets. It's not about wanting people unemployed. It's not about wanting people punished. The interest rate rises being talked about, if talked about in context, can't possibly do all that, unless the country is absolutely stretched to the absolute max, which is a different, and much bigger problem.

It's about wanting to see a fire that is burning out of control, and becoming harder and harder to control each and every month, dampended down. Not put out, just dampended down to a point where the fire can continue to burn, but we have control, instead of the fire having control of us.

Now, if this is sgtill too much for people to grasp, then feel free to just trounce every discussion with "you want people chucked out onto the streets" if they do not agree that current interest rates are the best thing since sliced bread. Continue to call anyone who wants to see houses become affordable for the majority, spinless money grabbing leaches trying to buy a house on the cheap.

All the rest of us can do is explain what is meant, over and over again.

Renovation...most people know your situation and generally, you get a "good luck" response. You've even had that from AD, I've witnessed it. You complain that people get at you because of your situation and call you a gambler. Yet you are laying into anyone who wishes to see balance through interest rate rises in the economy as a cash grabbing, dismal, slimey individual wanting people chucked on to the streets so that they can buy a second home. You couldn't get any further from the truth. Of course, you are getting Hamish excited, but he's excited by anyone paying more rent, or struggling to pay rent, who doesn't own. Infact, he's excited about anyone who doesnt pwn paying more for anything. You've taken your gamble, we all know your gamble, and those that you seem to be making stuff up about, haven't had a go at you, only suggested if it doesn't pay off, its your problem, which you know. Your posts have turned chucky-esque. Hope you see this as mere critism and not a go.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is getting silly, and seems to have reverted back to anyone who would like to see a balanced economy, as being labelled as wanting people pushed out of their homes, wanting punishment for those that have homes etc etc etc.

I'm not sure if this is a way of simply dampening the debate, or whether people can actually take that from what's said, and considering it all seems to stem from what AD said, I'm a little confused as to how it's ended up this way.

As Grant Shapps said on lending, the pendulum has swung too far the other way.....the pendulum has also swung to far with interest rates, for too long, hence the pound reacting favourably when there is the feeling of interest rate rises, and falling when those feelings are wiped away.

It's not about wanting people out on the streets. It's not about wanting people unemployed. It's not about wanting people punished. The interest rate rises being talked about, if talked about in context, can't possibly do all that, unless the country is absolutely stretched to the absolute max, which is a different, and much bigger problem.

It's about wanting to see a fire that is burning out of control, and becoming harder and harder to control each and every month, dampended down. Not put out, just dampended down to a point where the fire can continue to burn, but we have control, instead of the fire having control of us.

Now, if this is sgtill too much for people to grasp, then feel free to just trounce every discussion with "you want people chucked out onto the streets" if they do not agree that current interest rates are the best thing since sliced bread. Continue to call anyone who wants to see houses become affordable for the majority, spinless money grabbing leaches trying to buy a house on the cheap.

All the rest of us can do is explain what is meant, over and over again.

Renovation...most people know your situation and generally, you get a "good luck" response. You've even had that from AD, I've witnessed it. You complain that people get at you because of your situation and call you a gambler. Yet you are laying into anyone who wishes to see balance through interest rate rises in the economy as a cash grabbing, dismal, slimey individual wanting people chucked on to the streets so that they can buy a second home. You couldn't get any further from the truth. Of course, you are getting Hamish excited, but he's excited by anyone paying more rent, or struggling to pay rent, who doesn't own. Infact, he's excited about anyone who doesnt pwn paying more for anything. You've taken your gamble, we all know your gamble, and those that you seem to be making stuff up about, haven't had a go at you, only suggested if it doesn't pay off, its your problem, which you know. Your posts have turned chucky-esque. Hope you see this as mere critism and not a go.

GD, why do you get involved in other people's discussions if your not willing to read all the posts?

AD has made it very clear that he wants a rate rise in order to punish anyone who has 'over-leveraged' themselves. This might come as a surprise, but I'm not one of these, and so I'm not discussing this because I am agrieved because ADs comments were aimed at myself, I am just appalled that someone would take pleasure in another person's failure without even the poor excuse that they may personally benefit from it.

All your other stuff is just an Ad hominem because I have never complained that people call me a gambler and I'm not having a go at anyone else, unless they hold the same view as AD that people need to punshed financially.

If your throwing accusations around about other people's personalities, I would ask yourself why you seem to throw yourselves into other people's arguments/discussions, being intentionally provocative and revel in the attention?

Heyman_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Renovation...most people know your situation and generally, you get a "good luck" response. You've even had that from AD, I've witnessed it. You complain that people get at you because of your situation and call you a gambler. Yet you are laying into anyone who wishes to see balance through interest rate rises in the economy as a cash grabbing, dismal, slimey individual wanting people chucked on to the streets so that they can buy a second home. You couldn't get any further from the truth. Of course, you are getting Hamish excited, but he's excited by anyone paying more rent, or struggling to pay rent, who doesn't own. Infact, he's excited about anyone who doesnt pwn paying more for anything. You've taken your gamble, we all know your gamble, and those that you seem to be making stuff up about, haven't had a go at you, only suggested if it doesn't pay off, its your problem, which you know. Your posts have turned chucky-esque. Hope you see this as mere critism and not a go.

All this is a bit rich GD, given how many times I've seen you protesting about things being attributed to you that you haven't actually said.

Don't think I've ever seen RM say any of those things.

Graham_Devon

Heyman wrote: »

All this is a bit rich GD, given how many times I've seen you protesting about things being attributed to you that you haven't actually said.

Don't think I've ever seen RM say any of those things.

I like RM, and he knows that. Which is why I posted what I posted to him, for constructive critism. Would be a shame for another poster to get embroiled in forumonics which the two "sides" battle day in day out.

As for your bit rich stuff, its on this very thread:

Originally Posted by RenovationMan
lol, at least the bull gang are up front in why they want low rates. The bears try to wrap themselves in a thin veneer of caring for the economy, but its as clear as day that they think an increase in interest rates is directly equatable to a decrease in house prices. At least have the courage to admit that you want a rate rise because you want to pick up a bargain repo.

AD never actually said he wanted the overleveraged punished, he actually said:

It just seems that we are keeping the IR low to keep bailing out the over-leveraged, I for one think that these people have had enough time now to reduce their debts.

This is why I said it was all getting a bit silly. AD said that, and he's labelled with the above, and then labelled as wanting people punished and wanting to pick up bargain repos.

Now, I'm not here to speak up on AD's behalf. Just found it weird that a post can be shredded of it's context so much, and then posters thank themselves and egg each other on suggesting they've cracked why some people want interest rates to rise. All on the back of a context stripped post.

AD9898_2

RenovationMan wrote: »

Lovely rhetoric, but basically you have said that you dislike any gains that are made in any asset, be it Gold, Property, shares, bonds.

Nope, basically I just said property (nowhere have I said about any other 'asset').

The difference between property and the other 'assets' you mention is everybody needs a property (somewhere to live), that's why it's an emotive subject. Near enough every other asset can be taken or leaven, not so houses.

This is why I fundamentally disagree with any rise above wage inflation, why should anyone pay more for the most basic of commodities just because they were born later ?

I've said it before, I have close family who bought very nice properties in the 70-80's on very, very average salaries, their children even allowing for inflation earn substantially more than they did, have no chance of this option.

Hell they can't even do what I did in the mid to late 90's. I see this as fundamentally unfair and thus my stance on the subject, even though I stand to personally gain a great deal money wise if prices rose.

But money isn't everything to me, something that given your replies to my posts, you seem to think of as something saintly.

RenovationMan

AD9898 wrote: »

Nope, basically I just said property (nowhere have I said about any other 'asset').

The difference between property and the other 'assets' you mention is everybody needs a property (somewhere to live), that's why it's an emotive subject. Near enough every other asset can be taken or leaven, not so houses.

This is why I fundamentally disagree with any rise above wage inflation, why should anyone pay more for the most basic of commodities just because they were born later ?

I've said it before, I have close family who bought very nice properties in the 70-80's on very, very average salaries, their children even allowing for inflation earn substantially more than they did, have no chance of this option.

Hell they can't even do what I did in the mid to late 90's. I see this as fundamentally unfair and thus my stance on the subject, even though I stand to personally gain a great deal money wise if prices rose.

But money isn't everything to me, something that given your replies to my posts, you seem to think of as something saintly.

Its nice to be back chatting with you AD rather than other people with their own axe to grind.

I appreciate generally what you say about housing affordability, but its just not workable unless we go from a free market to one that is based in communism and we all live in grey housing estates with the same proportions in all houses.

Certain locations, housing sizes and neighbourhoods will always command a premium price over other housing (i.e. due to lower crime, better transport links, better schools and amenties, lovely countryside, sea views, etc. etc.). People will want to live in these places and will be prepared to pay that premium, pushing prices up. Are you saying that you want to prevent people from aspiring to live in these areas?

How would you do that?

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

Its nice to be back chatting with you AD rather than other people with their own axe to grind.

Ahh, you know what, forget it.

Was trying to highlight something to you as I thought you may appriciate it being highlighted, after our own previous discussions. But I'll simply leave you to it. All the best with the house stuff.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ahh, you know what, forget it.

Was trying to highlight something to you as I thought you may appriciate it being highlighted, after our own previous discussions. But I'll simply leave you to it. All the best with the house stuff.

Graham, Heyman's post said it best (heyman's posts usually do, he's much more literate than I am). I never said any of the things you attributed to me. Fair enough that you defended your mate AD, but I've been having an ongoing discourse with him over a few topics and I have found him to be very intelligent and more than capable of fighting his own corner.

I have said many times that I am not terribly interested in house prices and nor do I care if they fall or rise in value. I do care about interest rates and I am the first to say that I have a vested interest, I also know that while low rates benefit me, they hurt pensioners and savers.

However, I'm not actively hoping that pensioners get hurt in order to further my own aims and I'm definitely not hoping pensioners get hurt in order to teach them a lesson (i.e. that they should invest in shares rather than in saving accounts).

Perhaps I have misunderstood/misjudged AD when I think he wants people to suffer for daring to borrow money to fund their aspirations, but surely it really is for him to tell me that, not anyone else?

Heyman_2

RenovationMan wrote: »

Graham, Heyman's post said it best (heyman's posts usually do, he's much more literate than I am). I never said any of the things you attributed to me.

Wow, thanks RM, normally I don't get described as 'literate' without an 'il' being put at the front

To be honest though, I should probably know better than sticking my oar in - these types of discussions always head off on massive tangents and the nature of this forum (i.e. discussing essentially the same thing to the n'th degree) tends to result in obfuscation and inevitably things will get personal - probably best for you to answer for yourself as you're more than capable! Hence why I've not involved myself further.

What's happened to your sig by the way?

RenovationMan

Heyman wrote: »

What's happened to your sig by the way?

I unselect the 'Show your signature' tickbox often, especially if my post is short, otherwise the post is shorter than the blurb in my sig.