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!
Bullish Bulls have been calling the "Soft Landing" every year since 2002.
Comments
-
chucknorris wrote: »What would you like me to argue (debate) geneer? The problem is you type rubbish which is not possible to argue rationally. I'm afraid I can pnly argue logically, not things from your fantasy world.
A few key points here.
1) More objective observers would no doubt suggest that you cannot argue because the point made, with clear supporting evidence, is undeniable.
2) Your ability to argue logically quite clearly appears to have failed you in the majority, if not all, of your contributions to this thread.
3) To reitterate my "fantasy world" is apparently validated by clear supporting evidence. Sorry to have to break it to you.chucknorris wrote: »You'll have to hurry though we are going out to friands for drinks and dining very soon.
This may be the first statement you've made which is accurate.
It is unfortunately no more relevant than your previous efforts.0 -
A few key points here.
1) More objective observers would no doubt suggest that you cannot argue because the point made, with clear supporting evidence, is undeniable.
2) Your ability to argue logically quite clearly appears to have failed you in the majority, if not all, of your contributions to this thread.
3) To reitterate my "fantasy world" is apparently validated by clear supporting evidence. Sorry to have to break it to you.
This may be the first statement you've made which is accurate.
It is unfortunately no more relevant than your previous efforts.
I have failed to argue with you logically that is correct and the reason for that is that for a logical argument you need two logical people. As I have said previously dealing with you is like dealing with Wandsworth Council (so daft that even when I am right I have to give up because I realise I am just wasting your time with a fool). If you want to test your logic against mine how about an online game of chess? That might entertain me, however I haven’t the patience to educate you on where you got it all wrong, I’ll leave that to Julie who seems to be far more patient than I am.
You are completely wrong and all but the very silliest of bears realise this, yet you still continue to go on with your very illogical ramblings.
Julie has attempted to take you on directly on your OP content yet you just come back with nonsense. I am beginning to wonder if you are Jonathon Davis as you seem to be obsessed with 2002, and although you can clearly express yourself the whole premise on which you construct your argument is total faulted and illogical.
EDIT: Julie’s video link below sums up my ‘Wandsworth Council’ comment perfectly. You simply keep on repeating rubbish hoping that someone will just give up. Most people would be too embarrassed to appear this foolish, but you do not (in fact just like Jonathon Davis who appears on TV in the role of a clown who got it wrong and can’t see that he did)Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one birdThe only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistakeChuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".I've started running again, after several injuries had forced me to stop0 -
Old enough to be capable of making a decisive point and arguing my corner it seems.
Unlike this intellectual...
Absoloutely, im not taking sides! Im just wondering how old you are to give me a better picture of where you are coming from...so (roughly if you're easily embarrassed) how old are you?0 -
Sorry Julieq.
This has already been addressed.
The soft landing has always been a bullish invention.
Aside from clear memories of the same (no doubt shared by the majority of the forum, though apparently some would rather forget the same) for a laugh I've also provided several examples clearly demonstrating that my observation is accurate.
None of which you've been able to disbute, other than by meaningless unsubstantiated assertion.
Besides, you ask what kind of bull calls anything other than a rise in prices ever?
Hmmmm. You may want to have a word with the bull collective, because post crash they do seem to have appropriated stagnation and real term falls as a "win" for the bulls.
That would be a "BOOM HEADSHOT" by the way. :T
Geneer, you haven't produced any evidence at all that shows any bull here was predicting a soft landing. All you've done is find a few random quotes from a few random newspapers and mentioned a couple of forum names. I can find quotes from random newspapers that show that bears were forecasting 70% falls. And so what?
What is perplexing is that this is such a big deal to you. You've been so utterly wrong throughout that I'm guessing you need something you can be right about to hang onto, like some sort of security blanket. I guess that if you can be right about one thing you feel you might be vindicated, but it's a hollow hope.
A bullish bull would never predict any sort of reduction, by definition. A bearish bull might. Most "bulls" here aren't bulls anyway in that most of us have forecast falls or stagnation at some point, we're moderates on HPI. But it's irrelevant anyway because forecasts are history when their due date has expired. Anyone predicting that house prices now would be higher than in 2002 has won their bet. End of. It doesn't matter what they prophesied in between. Anyone betting against house prices in the same time frame has lost their bet. It doesn't really matter what they believed at any time in between.
Really it doesn't.0 -
and he won't either - i'm not sure trying to engage with him will solve his issues.Geneer, you haven't produced any evidence at all that shows any bull here was predicting a soft landing.
having got it it horribly wrong trying to discuss with him on an internet forum is not going to change his mind. he's a lost cause, ignore the silly trucker.0 -
and he won't either - i'm not sure trying to engage with him will solve his issues.
having got it it horribly wrong trying to discuss with him on an internet forum is not going to change his mind. he's a lost cause, ignore the silly trucker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYFQZFL0yoo&feature=related
0 -
How nasty are you. People will say "nasty julie, the guy pretending to be a girl and bullying people".
0 -
That's certainly a new set of insults to me, lol.
Leaving the transgendering issue aside, where exactly am I bullying anyone? I don't exactly see Geneer cowering in the corner sobbing. He'll be back in an hour or two with his usual collection of non-sequiturs and assertive nonsense, and when he beds down for the evening he'll still think he's put the bulls to the sword and he was right all along. He'll probably tell me that the bulls are the woman in the video.0 -
Geneer, you haven't produced any evidence at all that shows any bull here was predicting a soft landing. All you've done is find a few random quotes from a few random newspapers and mentioned a couple of forum names.
Two can play at that dull game Jules.
See, you haven't produced any evidence that "any bull here" (whatever that means) didn't call the soft landing at any point between 2002 and now.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Actually what I've done is find very specific quotes, for each and every year, since 2002, where a soft landing was incorrectly called by various VIs. Theres absolutely tons of them by the way. Ah the power of google.
I've also demonstrated, very clearly, what most people recall, in that the fabled "soft landing" was a hot topic for quite some time leading up to the crash. The reason it was, is because it was a bullish position. Created by the VIs and lovingly adopted as a meme by the bulls. As they were prone to do.
I've also provided a link to HPC where its clear that the "soft landing" was much derided by "bears".
And a link to well know bull website "the singing pig" where its also clear that it was much touted by "bulls".
And just for comedy effect, you asked (and have now glossed over of course) what kind of bull predicts stagnation.
Whilst quite clearly, post crash, the bulls have made signficant efforts to wriggle into the "stagnation = win" zone.
Fact. :rotfl:I can find quotes from random newspapers that show that bears were forecasting 70% falls.
Please proceed with that one.
What is perplexing is that this is such a big deal to you.
Yes. The Bullish dummy spitting, repeated personal attacks and repeated floundering efforts at laughable and irrelevant "counter-arguments" shows that its quite a big deal to me.
Seems like something of counter-intuitive analysis doesn't it.You've been so utterly wrong throughout that I'm guessing you need something you can be right about to hang onto, like some sort of security blanket. I guess that if you can be right about one thing you feel you might be vindicated, but it's a hollow hope.
Wrong in what way sweetie?
In 2006 I thought a crash was inevitable.
In 2007, the crash started.
Have to say, the phrase "utterly wrong" would be better reserved for a loose collective who either predicted something would occour which didn't (soft landing) whilst simultaneously predicting something wouldn't occour which did (the crash).
A bullish bull would never predict any sort of reduction, by definition. A bearish bull might. Most "bulls" here aren't bulls anyway in that most of us have forecast falls or stagnation at some point, we're moderates on HPI.
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: Ah. I see. So you've invented the terms "bullish bull" and "bearish bull" to justify an argument that no one is having.
Before declaring that theres no bulls anyway.
Another variation of the teapot game.
Lets call the crash a teapot. That way, theres clearly been no crash and the bulls win.
Lets call the bulls teapots. That way the teapots didn't get it wrong. The bulls did. But we're teapots so thats ok. :rotfl:
Astonishingly banal if you ask me.
But it's irrelevant anyway because forecasts are history when their due date has expired. Anyone predicting that house prices now would be higher than in 2002 has won their bet. End of. It doesn't matter what they prophesied in between. Anyone betting against house prices in the same time frame has lost their bet. It doesn't really matter what they believed at any time in between.
Really it doesn't.
Sorry, but you seem to be suggesting that the only conceivable time frame for assesment of some kind of unrelated "competition" is 2002 to 2011.
I'm fairly certain that thats just not the case.
As to the placing of bets, I'm not sure how much cash was left over once all the money was put on "soft landing". 0 -
http://www.singingpig.co.uk/forums/thread/85261.aspx
Does rather seem to spell out in which camp the soft landing scenario firmly lay, doesn't it?
Nice graphic too0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards