We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

House Prices Surge 68%

1…5678911»

Comments

  • geneer
    geneer Posts: 4,220 Forumite
    edited 2 October 2011 at 11:34AM
    IveSeenTheLight wrote: »
    LOL, your confusing to totally different articles where you are unremakably wrong again on the soft landing discussion

    http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/2003_forecast.htm


    although as you have linked to an article completely unrelated to this thread, and my comments, it appears to be you who is more than a tad confused.
  • geneer
    geneer Posts: 4,220 Forumite
    Pimperne1 wrote: »
    Don't count 10% drop as being a crash when I think we all said the market was a bit frothy. ;)

    :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:I don't know. Seems like this might be relevant.

    Lite, you really are your own worst enemy sometimes.
    Let the smokescreening begin.
  • IveSeenTheLight
    IveSeenTheLight Posts: 13,322 Forumite
    geneer wrote: »
    although as you have linked to an article completely unrelated to this thread, and my comments, it appears to be you who is more than a tad confused.

    Man, you really are losing it.
    You can;t even recall what you typed a few posts ago.
    I'm thinking you must be on something.

    Who brought up "soft landing" in this thread?
    geneer wrote: »
    OR as your compadres like to call it, a "soft landing". :rotfl:

    Maybe the fact you derail topic on most threads with a common theme is why you can't recall what specifically hapened in the thread.
    :wall:
    What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
    Some men you just can't reach.
    :wall:
  • geneer
    geneer Posts: 4,220 Forumite
    IveSeenTheLight wrote: »
    Man, you really are losing it.
    You can;t even recall what you typed a few posts ago.
    I'm thinking you must be on something.

    Who brought up "soft landing" in this thread?

    No. I merely mentioned the phrase "soft landing".
    That is not the same as bringing up the soft landing thread to which you refer.
    The error is yours. Again.


    IveSeenTheLight wrote: »



    Maybe the fact you derail topic on most threads with a common theme is why you can't recall what specifically hapened in the thread.

    Except it appears to be yourself derailing the thread by cut and pasting quotes from another completely unrelated thread.
  • IveSeenTheLight
    IveSeenTheLight Posts: 13,322 Forumite
    geneer wrote: »
    No. I merely mentioned the phrase "soft landing".
    That is not the same as bringing up the soft landing thread to which you refer.
    The error is yours. Again.

    Ok, I'm sorry, your cross thread posting of soft landing and 2003 predicitons is different to your reference to soft landing in this thread.

    My bad.

    Sorry I can't keep up with your differing meanings.
    :wall:
    What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
    Some men you just can't reach.
    :wall:
  • geneer
    geneer Posts: 4,220 Forumite
    IveSeenTheLight wrote: »
    Ok, I'm sorry, your cross thread posting of soft landing and 2003 predicitons is different to your reference to soft landing in this thread.

    My bad.

    It clearly is your bad lite, as you're the one incorrectly crossing unrelated threads.
    IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

    Sorry I can't keep up with your differing meanings.

    Heres a little clue. Claims of a soft landing in 2003 relates to 2003.

    Claims of a soft landing now relates to...erm....now.

    Its a difficult concept I know, but I hope you can grasp it.
  • IveSeenTheLight
    IveSeenTheLight Posts: 13,322 Forumite
    geneer wrote: »
    It clearly is your bad lite, as you're the one incorrectly crossing unrelated threads.

    I say no more on your different soft landings meanings of recent threads then
    geneer wrote: »
    The nationwide press release you've repeatedly linked to refers to Nationwides analysis of the housing market almost ten years ago.

    Pimpernel1s (and others) nonsensical judgement that current nominal falls of -10% count as a soft landing, is of course not from almost ten years ago.

    I didn't think it was that difficult a concept. But there you go.


    Do you really need me to link pimps quote and the article again?


    Pimps post 213
    Pimperne1 wrote: »
    This how they described their "soft landing" further down the statement:

    "Overall we believe that sentiment and expectations will be broadly neutral for house price growth. Given the modest deterioration of economic conditions our forecast is for UK house price growth to slow from around 25% in 2002 to 10% in 2003. The slowdown is likely to focus on the second half of the year, with the current strength of the market persisting for several more months. We may even see a static period of house prices around the Summer/Autumn as the market pauses for breath in light of affordability constraints and higher interest rates".

    Some soft landing.

    Geneers post 215
    geneer wrote: »
    :rotfl:Yeah. According to pimp -10% counts as a soft landing.
    So the VI's who made the predictions and coined the phrase must be wrong.

    Bonkers!

    My post with the original link 226
    IveSeenTheLight wrote: »
    LOL, you've not even loooked at the actual statement before attempting to discredit it.

    Here's the Link
    http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/2003_forecast.htm

    Here's the quote


    I'm interested to understand how you think 10% rowth is a crash.

    It would also be nice for you to admit for once you were wrong
    :wall:
    What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
    Some men you just can't reach.
    :wall:
  • geneer
    geneer Posts: 4,220 Forumite
    edited 3 October 2011 at 4:25PM
    :eek:Jesus wept. I can't quite believe it.

    Thats nice Lite, but cutting and pasting more quotes/links to an unrelated thread won't make them any more related.
  • IveSeenTheLight
    IveSeenTheLight Posts: 13,322 Forumite
    geneer wrote: »
    :eek:Jesus wept. I can't quite believe it.

    Thats nice Lite, but cutting and pasting more quotes/links to an unrelated thread won't make them any more related.

    No problem, as long as you and everyone can see directly what was discussed as the "soft landing"

    Feel free to link your different interpretation
    :wall:
    What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
    Some men you just can't reach.
    :wall:
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture