Harder to rewrite history than you think Bulls.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is here.

You seem to want to suggest one person is wrong, because he was HPC spokesperson.

Yet you want to alieviate any other commentator, because of their "VI".

I don't count anyone who is obviously speaking as a VI mouthpiece for the organisation they work for, not so difficult is it?

Cleaver

StevieJ wrote: »

I don't count anyone who is obviously speaking as a VI mouthpiece for the organisation they work for, not so difficult is it?

I don't think you can discount what people say just because of the organisation they work for, I just think you need to know that and take it in to consideration.

For example, the head of a cancer charity could release a statement saying how important it is for the public to give donations to cancer charities. You wouldn't expect them to say anything else, but it doesn't mean that they're not correct and genuine in what they say. Same for this dude at HPC I guess.

I think what you need to be careful of is people who become very entrenched in their views and start to see it as a crusade rather than an objective point of view. If you see what I mean. How you seperate one from the other I don't know.

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

I don't count anyone who is obviously speaking as a VI mouthpiece for the organisation they work for, not so difficult is it?

But who are we left with?

We can't really count the thoughts of anyone who gets to air their thoughts in the press by your argument.

Were just left with slamming davies, while ignoring everyone else, which is more than a little convinient.

geneer

Cleaver wrote: »

You're clearly a lot more intelligent that Sibley, you can tell that from the way in which you write. But seriously, I have a bit of a mental list somewhere of people who only ever post 'bearish' articles and say 'bearish' things and those that only ever post 'bullish' articles and say 'bullish' things. You and Sibley are both on that list. You start to all sound like the same person in a strange way.

Actually Cleaver, I tend to post bearish articles whilst actively deconstructing bullish assertions with viable, logical arguments.
Sibley is a troll.

Again you discredit yourself by attempting to make this comparison.

It appears as if you have degenerated your argument to the meaningless !!!!ing contest you appear to have wanted to avoid.

This is either a failure on your part, or your posturing on the moral high ground was completely insincere.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But who are we left with?

We can't really count the thoughts of anyone who gets to air their thoughts in the press by your argument.

Were just left with slamming davies, while ignoring everyone else, which is more than a little convinient.

I try to rationalise it myself, as Cleaver said you cannot completely ignore the VI viewpoint you just have to be aware of agenda.

geneer

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But who are we left with?

We can't really count the thoughts of anyone who gets to air their thoughts in the press by your argument.

Were just left with slamming davies, while ignoring everyone else, which is more than a little convinient.

Besides StevieJ appears to be speaking only for himself.
The anecdotal of a single individual is not particularly interesting, or evidence of much.

However, the claim that he is solely reliant on HPC for predictions and analysis....that is a bit of a strange claim.
I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't been all that honest with that one.

geneer

Cleaver wrote: »

I don't think you can discount what people say just because of the organisation they work for, I just think you need to know that and take it in to consideration.

For example, the head of a cancer charity could release a statement saying how important it is for the public to give donations to cancer charities. You wouldn't expect them to say anything else, but it doesn't mean that they're not correct and genuine in what they say. Same for this dude at HPC I guess.

I think what you need to be careful of is people who become very entrenched in their views and start to see it as a crusade rather than an objective point of view. If you see what I mean. How you seperate one from the other I don't know.

Usually by assessing if their viewpoints have any bearing on "real world" events.

Things that you might want to take into account when making such an assesment would be house prices actually crashing and financial systems effectively collapsing.

Cleaver

geneer wrote: »

Actually Cleaver, I tend to post bearish articles whilst actively deconstructing bullish assertions with viable, logical arguments.

Look, there's no problem here, we just differ on opinion. I tend to see your modus operandi on here as very similar to Sibley's whilst you don't.

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

I try to rationalise it myself, as Cleaver said you cannot completely ignore the VI viewpoint you just have to be aware of agenda.

I agree.

But by your theory, you'd need to include Davies in your summary of those to ignore, as they have an agenda. They STR'd and were spokeperson for a HPC website. So I' can't quite fathom out how you've singled him out from all the rest as the rest have VI's.

Which again, puts us back to square one.

Look all I'm saying, it's its easy to laugh at, point at, or call someone whatever name (not saying you, though thats the basic premise of this thread), when you have hindsight on your side.

I just think it's rather bizzare to be channeling all this at probably the one person who came closest with the outcome of the event (that I am aware of anyway), while ignoring those who couldn't even predict a fall, let alone when it may happen.

As I said, I personally believe it's all about who that person is and what they stand for, rather than what they may or may not have predicted. I'm aware hardly anyone, (if anyone at all) will actually admit this in writing, but I think this is closer to the truth as to the reasons as to why so many take pleasure in pointing out the failiures in his predictions, while leaving others who were wider off the mark alone.

If people just admitted they just don't like what he stands for, it would all be far easier than this guise that he was wrong and should therefore be laughed at.

geneer

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Another one, concerning Davies and Boulger.

Again? Who is closest? Davies, stating if the US goes down, we will too, or Boulger, suggesting the growth will continue?

Some other predictions, also featuring Mr boulger.

http://www.24dash.com/news/housing/2007-09-18-10-chance-of-1990s-style-house-price-crash

Simon Rubinsohn, chief economist at the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, said he thought there was a 10% chance that the value of property could fall steeply

RICS. September 2007. :rotfl:
Well thats RICS off the table then.

Nationwide Building Society warned at the weekend that house price growth could halve as a result of the current credit crisis.
Fionnuala Earley, group economist at Nationwide, said the global financial crisis would exacerbate the impact of rising mortgage rates and could make the current slowdown in the housing market worse.
She now expects house price inflation to slow to just 3% next year.

Uh oh. Thats nationwide on the scrapyard.

But Ray Boulger, senior technical manager at John Charcol, said there were unlikely to be house price falls, adding that the problems in the credit markets could be good for house price inflation in the long run.
He said: "Saying there is a one in 10 chance (of a house price crash) is more or less saying they don't think it is going to happen.

Whoops. Bye bye ray boulger.

And let me remind you all, this is
SEPTEMBER 2007