Nominal price falls are the same as the last crash. Discuss.

geneer

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Nominal falls for most of the UK are now around half what they were in the 90's crash, after the immensely sharper recovery than was experienced in the 90's.

Are they really? This is quite a regular assertion.
As is the number one quote from the bull meme-pool "house prices haven't crashed".

Given the sheer number of times such assertions appear within the forum I would suggest that it would be well worth while discussing these to conclusion.

I'm sure those who then find they are on the losing side of this discussion (whichever side that is) will then readily admit that they were in fact incorrect and resolve never to make such an incorrect assertion in future.


So lets kick off.


1) Are nominal falls similar to what they were during the 90's crash?

2) If they are, is it not fair and absolutely correct to describe the 2008/2009 fall as a crash (as the media, the politicians, the pundits and economists have).


I'll go first.

1) Yes.
2) Obviously.

Cleaver

geneer wrote: »

1) Are nominal falls similar to what they were during the 90's crash?

2) If they are, is it not fair and absolutely correct to describe the 2008/2009 fall as a crash (as the media, the politicians, the pundits and economists have).

I find it really, really odd how both you and Hamish are obsessed with whether the 90s was a crash or not, or now is a crash or not, or whether this or that was nominal, real, crash, not crash etc. etc.

Does it really matter one iota what you or Hamish call it? Why do you care so much?

robmatic

1) I thought you were saying earlier that they were much worse? Phew!

2) Errm, who doesn't? Is this one of your beloved strawmen?

Graham_Devon

Cleaver wrote: »

I find it really, really odd how both you and Hamish are obsessed with whether the 90s was a crash or not, or now is a crash or not, or whether this or that was nominal, real, crash, not crash etc. etc.

Does it really matter one iota what you or Hamish call it? Why do you care so much?

It matters lots of iota's to several people.

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It matters lots of iota's to several people.

Agreed. There's probably about seven people in the world who care about how Hamish and Geener choose to label house price movements on an internet forum.

Going4TheDream

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It matters lots of iota's to several people.

Obsessively it seems, even perhaps unhealthily obsessively in some cases?

chucknorris

Cleaver wrote: »

I find it really, really odd how both you and Hamish are obsessed with whether the 90s was a crash or not, or now is a crash or not, or whether this or that was nominal, real, crash, not crash etc. etc.

Does it really matter one iota what you or Hamish call it? Why do you care so much?

I can understand geener (someone who has lost out badly and obviously very jealous and resentful of those who have done better) but I can't understand Hamish so much, surely he should just give himself a pat on the back and just get on with enjoying life.

geneer

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It matters lots of iota's to several people.

It certainly does Graham. We all know how prevalent the attitudes I've mentioned truly are on this board. Its clearly more extensive than just Hamish.
Though as always certain individuals have a lot of trouble admitting obvious truths.

It certainly seems important to those who have elected to derail the thread rather than answer simple questions.

Strangely, they seem to be focusing on the second question in their missives.

Its almost as if they don't want to know the answer to the first question.

geneer

robmatic wrote: »

1) I thought you were saying earlier that they were much worse? Phew!

You thought wrong.

robmatic wrote: »

2) Errm, who doesn't? Is this one of your beloved strawmen?

Errm perhaps if you weren't so focused on following me from thread to thread making pointless one line interjections, you'd have a better understanding of the reality of this forum.

robmatic

geneer wrote: »

You thought wrong.

Apologies, I misread your hyperbole:

geneer wrote: »

Prices did fall. Significantly.
Nominal falls are already greater than the 90's crash (and likely to increase).

geneer wrote: »

Errm perhaps if you weren't so focused on following me from thread to thread making pointless one line interjections, you'd have a better understanding of the reality of this forum.

What reality is this?

wotsthat

geneer wrote: »

1) Are nominal falls similar to what they were during the 90's crash?

2) If they are, is it not fair and absolutely correct to describe the 2008/2009 fall as a crash (as the media, the politicians, the pundits and economists have).


I'll go first.

1) Yes.
2) Obviously.

1) You've complained about people making assertions and then simply done the same thing.

2) In an earlier thread I was happy to call it a crash as I know that's the language you like to use. In the real world I think I would be seen as overly dramatic if I went around talking about the great housing crash of 2008. I'm not sure it really matters what you call it though - does it really matter?