Cool graph from the BBC

meanmachine_2

cwcw wrote:

Unemployment is historically low - fact

Utter garbage.

In 1985 there were 3 million unemployed and 1 million on incapacity.

Now there are 1 million unemployed and 3 million on incapacity.

Ergo the number of "inactive" Brits is the same as it ever was.

All that the govt has done is trick people like you into thinking they've improved the situation.

Democracy - you get the govt you deserve.

tomstickland

I've noticed on here that the anti-crash types seem more agressive than the pro-crashers.

cwcw

lypsey wrote:

Unemployment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6149830.stm
It states "UK unemployment is continuing to rise - climbing by 27,000 to 1.71 million in the three months to September, the highest level in seven years. "

But still low in the wider context.

lypsey wrote:

Immigration - do you REALLY think a cook , chef , roadsweeper , fruitpacker on £5.10 an hour is able to influence a market where the average house is 176K. Come on man you need a better arguement than that

No, I think they will need to rent places, which is why there will need to be landlords buying the houses to rent out to them. I also think that, although £176k is the average price, most places in the country are much cheaper than that, provided the buyer isn't picky about location (and presumably a fleeing Romanian fruitpacker wouldn't be).

lypsey wrote:

Demand is greater than supply , Its has never been any different over the last 20 years . Look at the graph attached , you will see 3 peaks , two of which have troughs after them . Now look at the biggest peak , what will follow .... as I keep saying markets generally return to a norm/average

http://www.in2perspective.com/nr/stats/house-price-to-earnings-ratio.jsp

But is a house price to earnings ratio still relevant? Interest rates are historically low (and it seems, as I pointed out in my previous post, that banks believe this is likely to be maintained), so affordability is the key. Brits spend 18% of their monthly income on accommodation, which compares favourably with other European countries like Germany and Spain. If people can still afford it, they will still buy. A ratio will not change that. Also, what's to say that property ownership isn't gradually going back to the very wealthy, and that most people will just rent off them rather than own? This is how it used to be, so if everything is cyclical...

I accept that prices are rising but sentiment is changing . 6 months ago you never read in the paper of a crash , now it is weekly and daily , try reading the Telegraph on a Saturday. You have to remember that the Halifax , Nationwide , Countrywide , CML all have a massive vested interest in keeping the market buzzing . Don't believe everything you read

I don't intend on believing everything I read, particularly not from sites like HPC where bitter people have vested interests towards bringing misery on millions of other people so that they can afford to finally buy their own place. They want the best of both worlds - blow all their cash on booze/iPods/renting 'swanky' pads, etc, rather than saving for a deposit, and then make everyone else (who have made the sacrifices) pay for their deposit in the form of negative equity. Selfish doesn't even come near..

Also, what vested interest to Lombard Street research have? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6196695.stm
AFAIK, they're independent.

cwcw

tomstickland wrote:

I've noticed on here that the anti-crash types seem more agressive than the pro-crashers.

Erm..

meanmachine wrote:

I'm afraid you're showing your ignorance here.

Anything else you think you know about but don't know about?

meanmachine_2

The only FACT is that the reasons listed above have always been in place.

All that's actually changed in the last few years is that, c2004-5 banks abandoned their age old lending criteria, like they did in previous booms.

The other "reasons" why house prices have risen above wages are as old as the hills.

Had prices fallen in 2005 I guess we'd now be claiming that "the Poles did it" because they undercut UK workers and kept wages low.

It's a total red herring.

cwcw

meanmachine wrote:

The only FACT is that the reasons listed above have always been in place.

All that's actually changed in the last few years is that, c2004-5 banks abandoned their age old lending criteria, like they did in previous booms.

The other "reasons" why house prices have risen above wages are as old as the hills.

Had prices fallen in 2005 I guess we'd now be claiming that "the Poles did it" because they undercut UK workers and kept wages low.

It's a total red herring.

Only time will tell, my mean friend. £10 says no crash in 2007.

meanmachine_2

cwcw wrote:

Only time will tell, my mean friend. £10 says no crash in 2007.

I think you'd win that bet.

We won't get a crash until we get to 1989 levels of debt pain, and we're still a little away from that.

So my bet is still on 2009/2010.

And I don't mean to be rude in my posts. But at least you now know why banks can offer long fixes at 5% - they sell the securitized debt on to fund managers.

In other words, they offload the problem ionto someone else.

So you're right - banks always win in the end.

tomstickland

cwcw wrote:

Erm..

Apart from Meanmachine! But he's openly sceptical of the claims for infinite house price growth.

Alan_M_2

tomstickland wrote:

I've noticed on here that the anti-crash types seem more agressive than the pro-crashers.

Well a Bull will charge you down, a Bear just wants to give you a big hug:)

Alan_M_2

I've thought it's all been overpriced for a while, but as long as the goal posts keep getting moved (lenders willing to increase multiples and terms) it will just keep going.

The thing is, people who are interested or passionate enough to join a forum and express an opinion are generally going to be a reasonably intelligent bunch, so a good debate will ensue.

However, I do think that the general ignorance of the public at large is often underestimated, really, I never fail to be astonished at how short sighted people can be.