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
-
Still no sign of that much predicted soft landing though.
What's your definition of a 'soft landing'?
For the majority of your links, prices have not lowered beyond the figure for that time.
For there to be a soft landing, prices would need to return to their base point smoothly.
With the exception of 2008, has that happened?
And on note of 2008, wasn't it more of a case of a touch and go in 2009 / early 2010.
You may be seeing the soft landing late 2010 / early 2011 and there may be a period of when the house prices are grounded (stagnating) before taxiing towards the next take off :wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
Sorry Andy. You need to find the wand of zanzibar and the idol of zork before you can succeed in your quest to rewrite history.
House prices inexplicably holding their bubbicious value despite obvious and inevitable effect of market forces is a bullish fantasy.
Always was always will be.
Your reality tunnel is way too narrow. You come to the debate with your mind made up and as such you cannot see the full picture. House prices may fall slightly, and then slowly rise.
I had the opposite view in 2006 and sold my modest couple of property investments.
I change my view as the facts change.0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »What's your definition of a 'soft landing'?
Why, exactly the same as the VI's the bulls appropriated the meme from Lite.
Prices levelling out and hovering, in a warm and fuzzy way, despite there being no visible means of support by market forces.
In otherwords, the soft landing = stagnation.IveSeenTheLight wrote: »For the majority of your links, prices have not lowered beyond the figure for that time.
For there to be a soft landing, prices would need to return to their base point smoothly.
With the exception of 2008, has that happened?
And on note of 2008, wasn't it more of a case of a touch and go in 2009 / early 2010.
You may be seeing the soft landing late 2010 / early 2011 and there may be a period of when the house prices are grounded (stagnating) before taxiing towards the next take off
Funny you should post a pic of a plane, because your bogus assertion suggests that rocketing up 1000m before the engine cuts out and the plane plummets back to the ground in a spectacular fire ball, counts as a soft landing.
The pilot may want to have a word with you about that one. :rotfl:0 -
Fascinating.
Do you have a point related to the discussion in hand?
Yes, you are completely wrong, it was bears, not bulls, calling the soft landing in 2002 and there's been no crash, prices are still at their "bubblicious" levels, being more expensive today than in Feb 2006, less then a year before peak.0 -
Yes, you are completely wrong, it was bears, not bulls, calling the soft landing in 2002 and there's been no crash, prices are still at their "bubblicious" levels, being more expensive today than in Feb 2006, less then a year before peak.
Thank you for rephrasing your unsupported assertions.
Please refer to previous response. 0 -
Funny you should post a pic of a plane, because your bogus assertion suggests that rocketing up 1000m before the engine cuts out and the plane plummets back to the ground in a spectacular fire ball, counts as a soft landing.
The pilot may want to have a word with you about that one. :rotfl:
What your initially describing is something called a "stall turn".
The likelyhood of turning into a fireball upon executing a stall turn is extremely slim. Is that your analogy of the housing market?
Your distance of 1000m is for you pretty accurate as in my experience aerobatics has a lower ceiling of 3000 ft.
No need to speak to the pilot as this manouvere is standard training, including how to recover from it.
P.S. a take off does not need to "rocket" off, however it is standard practice to reach a minimum height to reduce the risks should there be any issues (i.e. allow more time for the pilot to adjust), however this is not reflective of what house pricehistorically have done.
P.P.S. I see you didn;t discount the "touch and go" analogy :wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »What your initially describing is something called a "stall turn".
The likelyhood of turning into a fireball upon executing a stall turn is extremely slim. Is that your analogy of the housing market?
Your distance of 1000m is for you pretty accurate as in my experience aerobatics has a lower ceiling of 3000 ft.
No need to speak to the pilot as this manouvere is standard training, including how to recover from it.
P.S. a take off does not need to "rocket" off, however it is standard practice to reach a minimum height to reduce the risks should there be any issues (i.e. allow more time for the pilot to adjust), however this is not reflective of what house pricehistorically have done.
P.P.S. I see you didn;t discount the "touch and go" analogy
Erm ok.
Though the fascinating thing about this strange contribution is that you're attempting to tell us the imaginary plane didn't really hit the ground, whilst a quick pop back to my analogy confirms that it did.
In a lovely big fireball.
Which, when you think about it, is exactly the way the bulls have been trying to deal with the crash that - y'know - did actually happen.0 -
Erm ok.
Though the fascinating thing about this strange contribution is that you're attempting to tell us the imaginary plane didn't really hit the ground, whilst a quick pop back to my analogy confirms that it did.
In a lovely big fireball.
Which, when you think about it, is exactly the way the bulls have been trying to deal with the crash that - y'know - did actually happen.
On the contrary, by the very simple definition of a "touch and go" means that the 'imaginary' plane does touch the ground
Your reference to the plane going into a 'lovely big fireball' would have meant the plane was destroyed, needed replacing.
I can't see how that equates to house prices. their still there, no crash and burn :wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »On the contrary, by the very simple definition of a "touch and go" means that the 'imaginary' plane does touch the ground
Your reference to the plane going into a 'lovely big fireball' would have meant the plane was destroyed, needed replacing.
I can't see how that equates to house prices. their still there, no crash and burn
Sorry Lite, but your propensity for obtuse diversionary antics
really has been revealed in all its glory.
Bonkers!
Still, good to note that the case made has been impossible to contradict.
I suppose thats what incontrovertable evidence does for matters.0
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