Home Ownership down – Cost of Buying Up

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Exactly as predicted.

The inevitable consequences of a house price crash and mortgage rationing leading to a worsening housing shortage as house building falls to the lowest levels in over a century.

Do you want to seel real consequences to people of your and nollag's ilk?

Consequences of ushering more lending, more schemes, more intervention?

Do you want to see how your arch enemy, Brit, tried to help someone by giving them the "nasty" advice to actually look into the homebuy scheme and if possible, walk away?

Pop over to the house buying forum. In just 2 years, a couple are at least 35k down, with no where to turn, thanks to the advice given by the usual VI's.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Now lets see if the evidence also suggests that rate rises will only happen when we have a strengthening economy and falling unemployment. Exactly as has been mentioned by numerous posters in numerous threads.

Ah yes, here we are.

--Mervyn King, June 2011

"The reason we would raise interest rates would be in the context of a much stronger economy with unemployment falling rather than rising.

It should also be the case that the interest rates that borrowers face should not rise as fast as the rise in bank rate.

"Along with the path of an increase in the bank rate -- which inevitably will come from where we are now back to more normal levels -- you would expect that to be accompanied by a process in which the spread between the bank rate and the rates banks charge would undoubtedly narrow."

Oh hi Graham, I see you're back.

Still no response to the above then?

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Oh hi Graham, I see you're back.

Still no response to the above then?

What do you want me to say?

Do you want me to say "oh ok then, there are no outside pressures on interest rates"?

I'm not going to. Mervyn is simply saying the only reason they would take the decision to move is based on a stonger economy. You are just allowing yourself to be hoodwinked, or, more than likely trying to hoodwink other people into believeing therefore that the only time rates will move is when the economy is stronger.

Let me make it clear to you. Mervyn's decision may be made for him. He's stating they will only make a decision to raise rates based on a stronger economy. He is NOT stating interest rates will only increase based on a stronger economy.

If you want to believe there is absolutely nothing that would have an effect on interest rates, then thats up to you. I'd warn caution however.

My windows need replacing. The only time I will make the decision to replace them is when I have the money to do so. However, if they rot out, the decision will be made for me, and I will have to take action. Though it's nice to think that my windows will stay in the same state they are now, until I have the cash to replace them....it's a little dumb to actually believe my windows won't deteriorate and force my hand.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Pop over to the house buying forum. In just 2 years, a couple are at least 35k down, with no where to turn, thanks to the advice given by the usual VI's.

got a link?

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

got a link?

Sure.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3194430

You'll find your pal nollag barging into the thread desperately trying to make out Brit is wrong and yabbering on about 50% off by christmas again.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Mervyn is simply saying the only reason they would take the decision to move is based on a stonger economy. You are just allowing yourself to be hoodwinked, or, more than likely trying to hoodwink other people into believeing therefore that the only time rates will move is when the economy is stronger.
.

:rotfl:

Epic muddling there Graham. Absolutely superb.

Lets try again.

"The reason we would raise interest rates would be in the context of a much stronger economy with unemployment falling rather than rising.

Not "that's one possible scenario" or "maybe the economy will be stronger when we move rates" but an absolutely definitive statement.

"The reason we would raise interest rates would be in the context of a much stronger economy with unemployment falling rather than rising..

And as for base rate rises feeding through into mortgage rates, again an absolutely definitive statement.

"the spread between the bank rate and the rates banks charge would undoubtedly narrow."

"Undoubtedly".... A very strong word Graham.

Not one prone to much interpretation.

In fact, quite possibly a word so strong it's 'muddle-proof'. No wonder you ignored the quote earlier and are now trying to change the subject.:rotfl:

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

:rotfl:

Epic muddling there Graham. Absolutely superb.

Lets try again.

"The reason we would raise interest rates would be in the context of a much stronger economy with unemployment falling rather than rising.

Not "that's one possible scenario" or "maybe the economy will be stronger when we move rates" but an absolutely definitive statement.

"The reason we would raise interest rates would be in the context of a much stronger economy with unemployment falling rather than rising..

And as for base rate rises feeding through into mortgage rates, again an absolutely definitive statement.

"the spread between the bank rate and the rates banks charge would undoubtedly narrow."

"Undoubtedly".... A very strong word Graham.

Not one prone to much interpretation.

In fact, quite possibly a word so strong it's 'muddle-proof'. No wonder you ignored the quote earlier and are now trying to change the subject.:rotfl:

"The reason we would raise" - I don't know what you find hard with this sentence. It's simply stating the reason they would take a decision. That does not mean the decision will not be made for them.

This however, seems to completely pass you by. So you believe every word Mervyn states?

That's what you appear to be telling us.

Would I be right?

Or is it just the words he states which back up your cause that you will believe? Mervyn stated inflation would not pass 3%. On your basis, inflation simply cannot have passed 3% as Mervyn said so. But it has. So you got anythign to say about that?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You'll find your pal nollag barging into the thread desperately trying to make out Brit is wrong and yabbering on about 50% off by christmas again.

Brit IS wrong. Consistently wrong.

Here's a young couple victimised by the crash, a crash that you and Brit and your ilk encourage and cheer on daily.

And you've got the nerve to suggest that this is somehow Nollags fault?

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Brit IS wrong. Consistently wrong.

Here's a young couple victimised by the crash, a crash that you and Brit and your ilk encourage and cheer on daily.

And you've got the nerve to suggest that this is somehow Nollags fault?

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You obviously haven't read the thread and have simply gone for Brit, as usual, because it's what you are best at.....playground insults, while debate passed you by.

Bury your head in the sand. Make things up. Make out they were victimised by the crash.

But heres the thing. And this is why you always make yourself look like a very silly boy. The crash happened before they bought. They even use the crash to celebrate how they got it cheaper.

You really should read stuff before coming to conclusions. It's evidently your biggest downfall.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

"The reason we would raise" - I don't know what you find hard with this sentence. It's simply stating the reason they would take a decision. That does not mean the decision will not be made for them.

This however, seems to completely pass you by. So you believe every word Mervyn states?

That's what you appear to be telling us.

Would I be right?

Or is it just the words he states which back up your cause that you will believe? Mervyn stated inflation would not pass 3%. On your basis, inflation simply cannot have passed 3% as Mervyn said so. But it has. So you got anythign to say about that?

And there you go again, muddle, muddle, muddle.

The very fact that Mervyn has ignored inflation to not raise rates until the economy is stronger and unemployment is falling is proof he means what he says.

"The reason we would raise interest rates would be in the context of a much stronger economy with unemployment falling rather than rising."

That's when rates will rise, Graham.

When the economy is much stronger and when unemployment is falling.

Not exactly conditions you'd associate with falling house prices then.:)