Harder to rewrite history than you think Bulls.

Cleaver

geneer wrote: »

Sibley is a troll.
I am currently a bear, and will remain a bear until I decide otherwise.

You and Sibley are so similar and it's laughable you don't see it. Both of you come on here, only post articles that suit your agenda, argue completely and relentlessly with anyone who disagrees with you and would never even dream of moving one iota from your point of view. You're just the different side of the same coin. Maybe we should call you 'Buers'? Or 'Beulls'?

For example, have you ever, since 2006, read an article that states that house prices will rise and thought, "hmmm, that's a good point, maybe I'm not quite as convinced as I thought I would that I'm right"? Normal people do this every day on a whole host of subjects.

Graham_Devon

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?

"When the US catches a cold we tend to get one as well," said Jonathan Davis, a spokesman for the housepricecrash website.

"Certainly if the US economy goes into reverse and there are job losses, world economic growth and that of the UK could be affected," agreed Ray Boulger of mortgage broker Charcol. "This could, ultimately, have a dampening effect on the UK housing market."

But Mr Boulger also pointed out the differences between the market conditions of the US and UK, especially the short supply of housing and the relative prudence of UK mortgage lenders, as reasons why he believes the market will escape a crash.

Such underlying factors in the market bolster the strong growth which has been enjoyed over recent years. Hips may cause a period of uncertainty if they create chaos and prove useless to sellers and buyers alike, but it seems unlikely that they will cause such confusion that the market is turned upside down and plunged into a downturn.

Slam HPC all you like. Slam davies all you like. But it's clear who was closer on the predictions and up there in black and white, even if none got it absolutely spot on, as some reading this board seem to expect.

It's also, funnily enough, proven geener right with his response to me, as the bullish used supply and demand for a reason why prices wouldn't crash. I didn't mean to prove him right, it's just in the text loud and clear. Same thing is now used to suggest prices will rise.

geneer

Cleaver wrote: »

You and Sibley are so similar and it's laughable you don't see it. Both of you come on here, only post articles that suit your agenda, argue completely and relentlessly with anyone who disagrees with you and would never even dream of moving one iota from your point of view. You're just the different side of the same coin. Maybe we should call you 'Buers'? Or 'Beulls'?

I think you discredit yourself with that spurious view Cleaver.
And I don't think you even believe it.
I suspect you would never engage with an obvious troll like Sibley in any kind of serious debate. You just don't like the fact that you have done so with me and had your views challenged if not disproven.

Its a shame. You did seem like someone I could take seriously.

Cleaver wrote: »

For example, have you ever, since 2006, read an article that states that house prices will rise and thought, "hmmm, that's a good point, maybe I'm not quite as convinced as I thought I would that I'm right"? Normal people do this every day on a whole host of subjects.

All new information should challenge viewpoints. But opinions are ultimately formed by a balance of views. And articles should be read with a view as to the agenda of those supplying the information. So the answer to this is that I haven't had my opinion challenged enough to change that opinion.

Again, I believe experience in the "real world" you value so highly has validated this process.

robmatic

geneer wrote: »

They do if those influences were unprecedented, and subsequently accepted into their analysis. Indeed by simply admitting the error in and of itself gives them more credibility.

That simply demonstrates that someone is not a complete divot. It does not demonstrate reliable predictive analysis.

Hasn't Saint JD being predicting short-term falls consistently since the trough of the market?

peakoil_2

geneer wrote: »

Look Cleaver. Peakoil doesn't like the rather decisive outcome of the little "negative equity" chat, and is now spitting the dummy.

Again, an example of the extremes people will do rather than admit a truth they don't like.

He's right though. Smileys are good fun, if only because the posters they're directed too find them most annoying.
Peakoil being a case in point.

you must be using that random sentance generater again geneer because I have no idea what your talking about here.

here are some other ransom sentences to counteract your random sentences:

"Why can't the analyst produce another vile musician?An extremist explodes the prayer into an imaginative welcome."

"How will a bone sneak beside the gathering scenario?"

"The specimen loses whatever saved palace."

and your favourite.... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

StevieJ

geneer wrote: »

And it does rather appear as if the credit crunch was caused by mortgage defaults.

In the US, this thread reminds me of a film, I remember.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

How about Ray Boulger? The person Mr Davies went up against on the radio?

He works for a mortgage broker, who would take any notice of such a VI? So you have a STR arguing with a mortgage broker

Cleaver

geneer wrote: »

I think you discredit yourself with that spurious view Cleaver.
And I don't think you even believe it.
I suspect you would never engage with an obvious troll like Sibley in any kind of serious debate. You just don't like the fact that you have done so with me and had your views challenged if not disproven.

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.

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

He works for a mortgage broker, who would take any notice of such a VI? So you have a STR arguing with a mortgage broker

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".

Can't really go any further can we, as nearly everyone in the media talking about house prices, is from an establishment with a VI in the housing market. Seems you just wish to ignore every other commentator, and focus purely on the one you dislike, and it probably makes you feel a little bit better to highlight he was wrong, while simply finding ways of ignoring everyone else who ever said things in the media.

Head in sand, in my view, and this is where most discussions simply end, and forum politics takes over.

StevieJ

OK, if JD was correct and we have had a crash, what are you waiting for? why aren't you house hunting instead of posting here?