House prices have crashed 80%

robmatic

Flight2quality wrote: »

Like I said only gold and silver have been money for thousands of years since known history began.

People wiped their a**ses with bark for thousands of years as well but not many people want to go back to that...

Flight2quality

Dom (quoted in the 1st post) has been right all the way up for gold. When gold got near to $1000 many were disagreeing with his bullish views. All the way up to $1500 they were saying its a bubble. Now we are near $2000 and the same people who have been wrong all the way up are still just as wrong.

Us gold and silver bulls have been constantly proved right, and I can see why so many on here dont like it.

Especially Hamish now famous quote in 2009 when he joined "gold and silver were going to crash 100% guaranteed"

The funny thing is silver was £5 per ounce then. Now its £25 and picking up speed in its assent.

Cleaver

Flight2quality wrote: »

Dom (quoted in the 1st post) has been right all the way up for gold. When gold got near to $1000 many were disagreeing with his bullish views. All the way up to $1500 they were saying its a bubble. Now we are near $2000 and the same people who have been wrong all the way up are still just as wrong.

Us gold and silver bulls have been constantly proved right, and I can see why so many on here dont like it.

I'm personally not bothered by it. Why would I be bothered about an asset rising? It's obviously good news for anyone holding that asset. Remember that this forum isn't the real world. In the real world no one really cares all that much whether it's gold, silver, a share, wheat etc. that's falling or rising.

My point was that the same people don't really care when a house is measured in gold. People are paid in sterling, generally save in sterling, buy products in sterling, buy and sell houses in sterling and generally do everything in sterling. Therefore saying "houses have fallen 80% relative to gold" is obviously correct, and somewhat interesting, but ultimately irrelevant to 99.9% of people in the real world. 99.9% of people didn't convert a load of sterling in to gold a few years ago in order to see it rise, convert back to sterling and buy a house. So why would they care? It's nothing more than a vaguely interesting sidenote to most people.

It's like telling me that my money has fallen 420% in Apple shares over the past 5 years. Whilst that's true, I never owned Apple shares and nor do 99% of other people. So what am I meant to do with this information? Panic? Kick myself?

Flight2quality wrote: »

Especially Hamish now famous quote in 2009 when he joined "gold and silver were going to crash 100% guaranteed"

The funny thing is silver was £5 per ounce then. Now its £25 and picking up speed in its assent.

No disrespect to Hamish meant, but he's a nobody on an internet forum. So am I. So are you. It really doesn't matter.

nollag2006

MoneyWeek ?? Is that comic still going?? I thought they'd packed up completely when that God awful woman Merynn Somerset-Webb piled back into the property market 18 months ago

Here's what Dom had to say about the property market at it's lowest point in March 2009:
http://www.moneyweek.com/investments/property/uk-house-prices-will-plummet-look-at-this-scary-chart-14664

Classic fail - I believe the term is !!

Flight2quality

Cleaver wrote: »

I'm personally not bothered by it. Why would I be bothered about an asset rising? It's obviously good news for anyone holding that asset. Remember that this forum isn't the real world. In the real world no one really cares all that much whether it's gold, silver, a share, wheat etc. that's falling or rising.

My point was that the same people don't really care when a house is measured in gold. People are paid in sterling, generally save in sterling, buy products in sterling, buy and sell houses in sterling and generally do everything in sterling. Therefore saying "houses have fallen 80% relative to gold" is obviously correct, and somewhat interesting, but ultimately irrelevant to 99.9% of people in the real world. 99.9% of people didn't convert a load of sterling in to gold a few years ago in order to see it rise, convert back to sterling and buy a house. So why would they care? It's nothing more than a vaguely interesting sidenote to most people.

It's like telling me that my money has fallen 420% in Apple shares over the past 5 years. Whilst that's true, I never owned Apple shares and nor do 99% of other people. So what am I meant to do with this information? Panic? Kick myself?



No disrespect to Hamish meant, but he's a nobody on an internet forum. So am I. So are you. It really doesn't matter.

If you really dont care so much why the long rant?

When anyone is losing an argument its easy to resort to to - well I dont care anyway.


This is a forum about the ecconomy and house prices, its a debate. If you really dont care about these things so much why read or post on here at all?

Cleaver

Flight2quality wrote: »

If you really dont care so much why the long rant?

When anyone is losing an argument its easy to resort to to - well I dont care anyway.

Did it read as a rant? Apologies if it did. It was just a discussion on a discussion forum.

And what arguement am I losing? Didn't I agree with you? The article is correct. When you compare house prices to the price of gold they have indeed fallen 80%. And I said that this was milding interesting to some people, but to the majority of people it's not really relevant. That isn't a rant in my opinion, it's taking the article and posing the question around whether this information is really that important to people who get paid in sterling, store wealth mainly in sterling and buy and sell houses in sterling? In my eyes it isn't that important, obviously in your eyes it is. Do you want to expand on why Mr and Mrs Bloggs, who don't own any gold and don't plan to, should care that much about the price of their house relative to gold? Aside from it being a comment on how poor our economy is I can't really see why they'd care. But maybe you can convince me?

Flight2quality wrote: »

This is a forum about the ecconomy and house prices, its a debate. If you really dont care about these things so much why read or post on here at all?

I care about debating issues related to the economy, but my point was that I don't really 'care' (if that's the right term) that house prices have fallen 80% compared to the price of gold because I, like many others, don't own much gold and silver. It makes up about 3% of my portfolio.

AD9898_2

80%, !!!!!! !, ever likely don't hardly post here anymore with this kind of bollox, stillit was worth visiting to read a 'Cleaver' post

nollag2006

TheMystery wrote: »

All those who dont agree with the article from the op should come out with a well thought out reason why its wrong.

Its too easy to just say its all bollox but not give any reasons why.

its bound to be rubbish if its published in MoneyWeek.

Even their own editor doesnt believe their house price crash nonsense and has bought back into the house market.

Here's what Dom had to say about the property market at it's lowest point post-crash in March 2009:
http://www.moneyweek.com/investments...ry-chart-14664

Cleaver

TheMystery wrote: »

So you are trying to argue that gold and silver have nothing to do with the economy? I think you wil find yourself in the minority there.

Can you please find a quote from me where I've said this? Of course gold and silver are linked to the economy, it'd be stupid to suggest otherwise.

I was arguing that for the majority of British public the price of their house relative to gold isn't really something they need to be that interested in, as it has no practical implications to them.

TheMystery wrote: »

All those who dont agree with the article from the op should come out with a well thought out reason why its wrong.

Its too easy to just say its all bollox but not give any reasons why.

Again just to say that I think the article is correct. The price of gold has gone up, the price of houses has gone down. Thus, when compared, the price of a house is 80% down compared to gold. Agreed? What I'm now asking is what the British public can pratically do with this information considering the vast majority of them don't store all their wealth in gold and are unlikely to do so in the future.

Flight2quality

nollag2006 wrote: »

Here's what Dom had to say about the property market at it's lowest point post-crash in March 2009:moneyweek.com/investments

Fantastic article, yes looks like he is spot on. Exactly right so far looking at the chart of UK house prices it was scarily similar to 'that chart' upto 2009, and even more scary is how Dom predicted it would follow the rest which it has done exactly to the top of that bull trap. Next comes fear and foreign buyers pulling out, so time will tell if Dom will continue to be right.


A thousand ounces of silver costs about £10,000 in 2009 when he wrote that. Now it will cost £26,000.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, gold and silver bears.