Halifax -0.5% MoM -2.3% YoY

joguest

OK, let's have a look at Rinoa's comments in greater detail:

To me: "Even in the highly selective periods you've chosen "

My response: "I didn't select any periods - I used the entire LR data-set going back to Jan 1995."

Rinoa's response: "Nice diversion Jo. But I think we can safely say your theory has zero merit. "

Ok, so Rinoa accusses me of something I didn't do (and in so doing almost certainly reveals something about himself through psychological projection - a common character trait of narcissists).

I respond that my data wasn't selected and his response is that I am creating a diversion. How am I creating a diversion exactly? How does stating that the data represents the entire period from Jan 1995 to the present (in reply to the false accusation he has made) imply that I am creating a diversion (again, this is psychological projection). Then Rinoa claims my theory has zero merit and by using the word 'we' presumably thinks that his views represent everybody's views.

How, in any way whatsoever, can anybody describe that as me losing the argument?

I stand by my assertion that Rinoa is !!!!!! (probably emotionally) based on his unwillingness to engage in reasoned debate and by his use of psychological projection.

Sorry, but I don't tolerate fools and I'm not interested in winning the support of a crowd. I'm interested in getting to the truth.

joguest

The strange thing is, comparing 2011 prices/volumes to 2010 prices/volumes, there is a slight decline in both prices and volumes, showing that the market is dominated by decreasing demand, yet Rinoa is trying to assert that volumes & prices are going to increase (increase in demand).

The only sensible question anyone should be asking is how supply is going to react to the decrease in demand (and prices), given the large number of people that have delayed selling over the last few years in the hope of prices rising again. Capitulation would see prices fall with increasing volumes (partly over small scales of few month periods, but more importantly when compared over a period of 1-2 years). It's very difficult to predict exactly what will happen; whther we'll see prices continue to drift slowly down or whether there'll be another leg-down, but the chances of a demand-led recovery in prices/volumes looks highly unlikely (especially when considering that volumes are well below average at today's prices and demand is slowly falling)

Linton

joguest wrote: »

The strange thing is, comparing 2011 prices/volumes to 2010 prices/volumes, there is a slight decline in both prices and volumes, showing that the market is dominated by decreasing demand, yet Rinoa is trying to assert that volumes & prices are going to increase (increase in demand).

The only sensible question anyone should be asking is how supply is going to react to the decrease in demand (and prices), given the large number of people that have delayed selling over the last few years in the hope of prices rising again. Capitulation would see prices fall with increasing volumes (partly over small scales of few month periods, but more importantly when compared over a period of 1-2 years). It's very difficult to predict exactly what will happen; whther we'll see prices continue to drift slowly down or whether there'll be another leg-down, but the chances of a demand-led recovery in prices/volumes looks highly unlikely (especially when considering that volumes are well below average at today's prices and demand is slowly falling)

I think you underestimate the complexity...

In normal circumstances most sellers are also buyers, mainly of more expensive houses. So an economic limit on demand also constrains supply. The concept of people choosing to delay selling until prices increase is unrealistic - people cant sell until they can buy. They cant buy until the credit is available for their next house.

For these reasons, an increase in the availability of credit will lead to a quick increase in both demand and supply. But supply is ultimately limited by the total number of houses which cannot move as quickly. Until this constraint is resolved house prices must in general increase.

At the other extreme, even if new demand drops off completely there will always be some supply because of forced sales - death, inability to pay the mortgage and employment. I believe we are close to this situation at the moment.

geneer

joguest wrote: »

OK, let's have a look at Rinoa's comments in greater detail:

To me: "Even in the highly selective periods you've chosen "

My response: "I didn't select any periods - I used the entire LR data-set going back to Jan 1995."

Rinoa's response: "Nice diversion Jo. But I think we can safely say your theory has zero merit. "

Ok, so Rinoa accusses me of something I didn't do (and in so doing almost certainly reveals something about himself through psychological projection - a common character trait of narcissists).

I respond that my data wasn't selected and his response is that I am creating a diversion. How am I creating a diversion exactly? How does stating that the data represents the entire period from Jan 1995 to the present (in reply to the false accusation he has made) imply that I am creating a diversion (again, this is psychological projection). Then Rinoa claims my theory has zero merit and by using the word 'we' presumably thinks that his views represent everybody's views.

How, in any way whatsoever, can anybody describe that as me losing the argument?

I stand by my assertion that Rinoa is !!!!!! (probably emotionally) based on his unwillingness to engage in reasoned debate and by his use of psychological projection.

Sorry, but I don't tolerate fools and I'm not interested in winning the support of a crowd. I'm interested in getting to the truth.

Don't be too hard on Rinoa. He's retired.
He has his lucid days and his bad days.

Graham_Devon

joguest wrote: »

OK, let's have a look at Rinoa's comments in greater detail:

To me: "Even in the highly selective periods you've chosen "

My response: "I didn't select any periods - I used the entire LR data-set going back to Jan 1995."

Rinoa's response: "Nice diversion Jo. But I think we can safely say your theory has zero merit. "

Ok, so Rinoa accusses me of something I didn't do (and in so doing almost certainly reveals something about himself through psychological projection - a common character trait of narcissists).

I respond that my data wasn't selected and his response is that I am creating a diversion. How am I creating a diversion exactly? How does stating that the data represents the entire period from Jan 1995 to the present (in reply to the false accusation he has made) imply that I am creating a diversion (again, this is psychological projection). Then Rinoa claims my theory has zero merit and by using the word 'we' presumably thinks that his views represent everybody's views.

How, in any way whatsoever, can anybody describe that as me losing the argument?

I stand by my assertion that Rinoa is !!!!!! (probably emotionally) based on his unwillingness to engage in reasoned debate and by his use of psychological projection.

Sorry, but I don't tolerate fools and I'm not interested in winning the support of a crowd. I'm interested in getting to the truth.

Welcome to debate with Rinoa.

And many others infact. It's not what you DO say. It's what you DON'T say that they use. Will tell you you have suggested something (though you haven't, but in not doing so, you haven't left yourself open), or state "are you suggesting" to ignore the debate and simply accuse you of something.

You get used to it, though it does get a little annoying when all of a sudden 5 posters are doing it.

geneer

joguest wrote: »

A "soundbite"?

What was my soundbite? Why do you describe something I've said as a soundbite?

My reasoning and the data are actually quite sound, so why do you dismiss it exactly (not to mention the fact that Rinoa presents arguments based on pseudo-science, quoting supply and demand when he clearly has absolutely no idea what he's talking about)? And how has it been disproved?- I've seen absolutely no evidence presented that has disproved anything I've said and on the contrary I've provided good examples of data that fit my arguments. You're welcome to support an argument against me that was derived by distorting my arguments and then cherrypicking data to prove the distortions if you want. I can also draw conclusions about you from your comments.

I suspect Bravo's trolling a bit.
Its quite clear you've danced rings around Rinoa.

Rinoa

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Welcome to debate with Rinoa.

And many others infact. It's not what you DO say. It's what you DON'T say that they use. Will tell you you have suggested something (though you haven't, but in not doing so, you haven't left yourself open), or state "are you suggesting" to ignore the debate and simply accuse you of something.

You get used to it, though it does get a little annoying when all of a sudden 5 posters are doing it.

Or maybe, just as Jo does, you completely ignore counter arguments and respond by attacking the other poster because they disagree with you.

JonnyBravo

joguest wrote: »

@JonnyBravo

I work as a scientist. I review the work of other scientists as part of my job. Believe me, there's more to 'disproving' a hypothesis than saying: "But I think we can safely say your theory has zero merit. "

Perhaps I should put that in my next review of a grant application: "I think we can safely say this application for funding has zero merit"

I didn't realise your were a [sharp in take of breath accompanied by dramatic tone] scientist!
You seem to be a scientist prone to flying off the handle. I take it you don't work with dangerous chemicals or unstable compounds.
I'll leave you to your dangerous work.

Graham_Devon

Rinoa wrote: »

Or maybe, just as Jo does, you completely ignore counter arguments and respond by attacking the other poster because they disagree with you.

I generally don't attack posters.

Now, I'm sure you will suggest I do, but you will have a hard time finding an actual attack. Not very often I ignore either, though I will if I feel I can get a better debate discussing with the kids at my sons nursery.

I'm sometimes very astonished at posters, and write as such. But very rarely, if ever, attack or insult.

geneer

Rinoa wrote: »

you completely ignore counter arguments and respond by attacking the other poster because they disagree with you.

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

This from Columbo.
I think I may have burst something.

As always the bulls operate with the self awareness of a garden shed and zero notion of irony.
The jaw dropping hypocricy is exquisite.