House price cuts helped sales surge by nearly 10pc last month

shortchanged_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

What we know for sure is that any significant fall in prices will decimate supply.

As I said earlier Hamish it depends what the factors are that are causing the fall in prices, i.e interest rate rises, an increase in forced sellers.

crash123

Really2 wrote: »

By the fact there are falling numbers of property coming on the market?

Also increasing sales as you have just pointed out.

You can have decreasing supply and increased demand, seems like everyone forgets what that looks like.



And I was accused of not understanding supply and demand the other day.

Anybody can copy and paste it dosen`t mean you understand it.

crash123

shortchanged wrote: »

This is the current state of the housing market. Slow fall in prices.

Why?

Currently due to low supply and low demand.

So what is causing the lack of supply? Low interest rates (buyers not being forced to sell), risk of negative equity, not being able to make at least £100,000 profit on the sale of your house.

What is causing the lack of demand? Tight lending practices. Uncertain economic times (lack of money everywhere), buyers not willing to pay over the odds for a property.


Basically we have the situation of a Mexican stand off until something changes to tip the balance in the favour of one or the other.

lack of supply is due to the banks having shell companies buying their repos.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

shortchanged wrote: »

i.e interest rate rises, an increase in forced sellers.

Well we know those are not causing the falls in prices at the moment, and are unlikely to be factors for several years to come.

So based on current factors, and probable near to mid term factors, there's little evidence to suggest a repeat of the great supply cull of 2008 would not be the outcome.

joguest

crash123 wrote: »

Anybody can copy and paste it dosen`t mean you understand it.

His description of what is going on on the plot proved beyond all doubt that he didn't understand it. He confused an increase in price due to a decrease in supply with an increase in demand (the demand hasn't actually changed, only the equilibrium position for price/volume). This really is quite basic stuff as well. It's one of the first things they teach you in GCSE economics.

As for the person that asked what supply is (I don't know why they would do that particularly - have they not discovered google?).

Supply is the number of products that sellers are willing to sell at any one given time in the market place. It is a function of multiple variables including price, but it is conventionally plotted as a function of price. The number of houses on the market isn't particularly relevant. What is important is the number of sellers willing to sell at different prices. If volumes are increasing and prices are decreasing then the market is dominated by increasing supply. It doesn't really matter how many houses are on the market.

If anybody judged me by the quality of my opponents on here then I wouldn't have much of a reputation.

Really2

joguest wrote: »

His description of what is going on on the plot proved beyond all doubt that he didn't understand it.

No the link was used as an example of when supply decreases what happens to prices. The only relation it has to the data is to show what happens when supply decreases and demand stays the same.
Supply has decreased, you are also pointing demand as increased.

If supply continues to fall and demand continues to increase what happens to prices? (prices will rise and demand will fall eventually)

Please tell me, you seem to state stock is rising but have no evidence to back this up, other than calling the facts lies.

Forget your GCSE Supply and demand for beginers books, you have stated both can run together and they can, to a point.

But if supply keeps falling you know very well prices will rise and demand will fall eventually.

You just hate the fact supply falling is a fact at the moment and it spoils what you have in your mind as correct you have no evidence supply is increasing.
So if you can't back up supply increasing, but can back up supply is decreasing with facts what does that say about your theory?

joguest

"No the link was used as an example of when supply decreases what happens to prices.
Supply has decreased, you are also pointing demand as increased."

Demand hasn't increased you igonramus. The equilibrium quantity has decreased and the price has increased. The demand curve is in the same place - i.e. demand has not changed.

"Please tell me, you seem to state stock is rising but have no evidence to back this up, other than calling the facts lies."

I have never said that stock is rising, you ignoramus. I have stated that if volumes increase and prices decrease then the market is dominated by increasing supply.

I've lost count of the number of times I've stated that stock is not the same as supply. Have you not got it yet?

"you have stated both can run together."

Yes, but the important word here is 'dominanting'. If an increase in supply is dominating an increase in demand then volumes rise and prices fall.

ukcarper

joguest wrote: »

His description of what is going on on the plot proved beyond all doubt that he didn't understand it. He confused an increase in volume due to a decrease in supply with an increase in demand (the demand hasn't actually changed, only the equilibrium position for price/volume). This really is quite basic stuff as well. It's one of the first things they teach you in GCSE economics.

As for the person that asked what supply is (I don't know why they would do that particularly - have they not discovered google?).

Supply is the number of products that sellers are willing to sell at any one given time in the market place. It is a function of multiple variables including price, but it is conventionally plotted as a function of price. The number of houses on the market isn't particularly relevant. What is important is the number of sellers willing to sell at different prices. If volumes are increasing and prices are decreasing then the market is dominated by increasing supply. It doesn't really matter how many houses are on the market.

If anybody judged me by the quality of my opponents on here then I wouldn't have much of a reputation.

Not every body has studied economics and assumes supply is the number of items available for sale they ask a simple question and get an arrogant reply I suppose that says something about you.

Really2

joguest wrote: »

"No the link was used as an example of when supply decreases what happens to prices.
Supply has decreased, you are also pointing demand as increased."

Demand hasn't increased you igonramus.

Supply and demand in houses, EG the thread.

Or is you thread saying a 10% increase in sales does not relate to demand.


Could you try a bit of logic for a bit rather than trying to read something into something that is not there.

Demand (sales of houses) is up 10% your article.
Supply is down (quote provided)

Tell me how you get to supply is down please. As you seem to be avoiding it with twisting and squriming.

joguest

ukcarper wrote: »

Not every body has studied economics and assumes supply is the number of items available for sale they ask a simple question and get an arrogant reply I suppose that says something about you.

You're welcome to whatever opinion you want of me, but I have repeatedly and politely pointed out some very straightforward concepts only to be completely ignored and ridiculed by the very people demonstrating their ignorance.

I'm no expert in economics whatsoever. I have precious little to be arrogant about in that regard. However, what little I do know from studying the subject over 20 years ago at GCSE level (hardly advanced) seems to fly well above the heads of those that repeatedly attack me. They attack me because they know they are wrong and they can't handle it. What does that say about them?