Property Bulls disgust me - selfish people

chucknorris

B_Blank wrote: »

Anyone wanting a return to this situation where rents drive up house prices, which then drives up rent, which then drives up house prices, which then drive up rent etc etc etc... is SCUM.

Basically they want a return to the 16th century when the landed classes just have a monopoly on property and the hard working talented people cant get into it.

The vicious cirlce outlined above is championed by most of the selfish, vested interest bulls on this board, and it disgusts me.

I own investment property, obviously I want the value to go up (both in capital and rent received) rather than down. It's no different to someone wanting prices to fall so that they can buy (either way someone losses out).

I didn’t whinge when prices fell back in 2008, in fact I considered buying more, but as I plan to sell up in 10-15 years it wasn’t worth getting further involved. Just man up and get on with life, whinging isn't going to help.

julieq

I think anyone who has ever argued with Geneer is going to end up think they're better than him. It's not particularly challenging to be better than Geneer, sorry Graham. Normally it's impolite to point that out, but given he seems to believe the contrary and points that out fairly regularly, I think we can waive that rule, no?

tartanterra

B_Blank wrote: »

Anyone wanting a return to this situation where rents drive up house prices, which then drives up rent, which then drives up house prices, which then drive up rent etc etc etc... is SCUM.

Basically they want a return to the 16th century when the landed classes just have a monopoly on property and the hard working talented people cant get into it.

The vicious cirlce outlined above is championed by most of the selfish, vested interest bulls on this board, and it disgusts me.

Whilst you of course, obviously have a selfish, vested interest in house prices dive bombing.

Which, if it did happen, would leave many hard working talented people facing negative equity in their sole property and unable to move up the ladder when they start a family.

Nice one........And you call other people selfish....???

Jimmy_31

I am going to take a wild guess and say that hamish mcsuperior would never have the bottle to disrespect any of the employees of any of the fast food outlets where i live, not online of course but up close and personal, you are revealing more and more about yourself hamish and its becoming quite obvious that you are a nasty piece of work.

Just out of curiosity what jobs should we all get to live up to your standards ?

Please feel free to ignore the latest of my silly posts hamish, you are getting quite good at it. (but looking like a soft ar5e in the process)

geneer

julieq wrote: »

I think anyone who has ever argued with Geneer is going to end up think they're better than him.

Of course you really mean argued and lost sweetie.

julieq wrote: »

It's not particularly challenging to be better than Geneer, sorry Graham.

Your certainly better a constructing elaborate fantasies and acting them out with your pals.

On the issues. Not so much. :cool:

julieq wrote: »

Normally it's impolite to point that out, but given he seems to believe the contrary and points that out fairly regularly, I think we can waive that rule, no?

I've claimed to be better than anyone?
Hmmmmmmm.
Computer says no.
Sorry jules, you're on your own with the desperate need for self aggrandisement.

Well, just you and Hamish anyway.

Actually, just you and Hamish and I've seen the lite.

Ok, you and Hamish and Lite and renovationman.

Hey, I think I'm spotting a pattern here.

geneer

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Why don;t you just give up this whole pointless nonsense. Get to the point for once and for all.

Just say it. You think you are better than him.

You think you have a larger member, and are going to tell anyone who doesn't mind it being waved in their face at any given opportunity....

He's certainly not the top of the woodpile when it comes to scathing putdowns.

"do you want fries with that?".

Jesus. That was old when I started the first of my two degrees.

julieq

Geneer, today you have:

1) failed to notice that people renting don't live in houses no-one owns,
2) missed the point that Ireland has massive housing oversupply - more houses than households for about 10 years growth
3) failed to inform your supervisor you're using the internet on a toilet break

So I think I win really. Sorry.

geneer

julieq wrote: »

Geneer, today you have:

1) failed to notice that people renting don't live in houses no-one owns,
We've already discussed your patented "falling demand = rising prices" paradox. Bonkers.
2) missed the point that Ireland has massive housing oversupply - more houses than households for about 10 years growth
Incidentally, there was an oversupply of property in Ireland in 2006 too. Gosh. Almost suggests that supply vs demand was not the prime factor in the bubble.
3) failed to inform your supervisor you're using the internet on a toilet break
Your PC is in your staff toilet Jules? Lordy. you really did get the short straw in the desk allocations.

So I think I win really. Sorry.

If you say so Julieq.

Actually, sorry, scratch that.
I'm afraid just saying something doesn't make it so.

Though you would have learned that by now.

davilown

B_Blank wrote: »

Anyone wanting a return to this situation where rents drive up house prices, which then drives up rent, which then drives up house prices, which then drive up rent etc etc etc... is SCUM.

Basically they want a return to the 16th century when the landed classes just have a monopoly on property and the hard working talented people cant get into it.

The vicious cirlce outlined above is championed by most of the selfish, vested interest bulls on this board, and it disgusts me.

Why are they selfish? Isn't that just what we 'bears' are as well?

System

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

(but looking like a soft ar5e in the process)

You're double hard, right Jimmy? I bet you could smash his face in, GRRRR.