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!
Nationwide October: +0.4% MoM, +0.8% YoY
Comments
-
-
Even better if you join up with Joguest and say that you would be happy if house prices dropped 90%. That would even up the playing field somewhat.
Why the straw man argument? And why the attack when I haven't been participating in a discussion with you?
I never said I'd be happy if house prices fall 90%. I did say that it wouldn't have a negative effect on my own personal circumstances if they did because I could then buy a much bigger house. As for the good of the whole - it's probably good if they fall around 40% in nominal terms from peak. This will restore labour force mobility in the economy, allow owner-occupiers to buy a place if they prefer ownership to renting and will also restore yields to something landlords can make a reasonable return from - i.e. their business would be based on the money they receive from the tenants (by providing a good service) rather than economic rent derived through speculation.
It would also teach the reckless to think about the value of money and debt, so there would be a pleasing moral aspect to such a reduction.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Well seeing as how you can't seem to grasp the concept of mix adjustment, I'm not surprised you don't grasp the fact that a minority of areas changing price can impact the median price.
Mix adjustment does not seek to compensate for differing rates of change in price between areas. Just for a change between housing types in the sales mix.
It prevents skew from more 4 bed houses selling than flats, or vice versa.
It doesn't prevent a median value changing as a result of a minority of areas changing price, whilst the majority remain stable.
OK, lets try a little example.
House prices are exactly £1000 in all areas. The median price is therefore also exactly £1000.
One year later:
House prices are unchanged in 70% of areas.
House prices rise by 2% in 10% of areas.
House prices fall by 6% in 20% of areas.
What is the median house price? Has it risen or fallen? Have the majority of houses fallen in price?
Answers on a postcard.....;)
Still no answer from joguest then.....“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Still no answer from joguest then.....
I gave up bothering to converse with you because it was completely unproductive. What's the point of a conversation with someone that deliberately distorts arguments to suit their prejudice, rather trying to gain a better understanding through discourse and reasoning. Unlike you, I do have better things to do with my time.
However, in the example you've given, I'll give you the answer:
The median is unchanged.
In matlab code: median([1000*ones(70,1);1000*.98*ones(10,1);1000*.94*ones(20,1)]) gives the (not unsurprising) answer, 1000.
The fact that you are so unused to statistical analysis that you failed to take into account the distribution just makes your 'argument' look risible.
Getting back to the original point I made - if the distribution of house price changes (from the previous month) is symmetrical then half the areas involved will have experienced a price drop and the other half will have experienced a price increase. If it is slight asymmetrical then it will be slightly skewed one way or the other. However, in the example you gave above, you didn't even take into account the fact that the different price ranges that you've divided the prices changes into (which in practice don't neatly fall into unchanged, down 2%, down 6%) have different weights. The fact that you don't know how to calculate something as straightforward as a median of a population only goes to show how ignorant you are.
But where have you actually got the information from that says the Nationwide use a 'median' anyway? I'm interested - please let me know.
And, additionally, they not only adjust for different types of property in the sales 'mix' but also the skew caused by the regional variations in their business. Their analysis does actually consist of more than adjusting for different types of property.0 -
Why the straw man argument? And why the attack when I haven't been participating in a discussion with you?
I never said I'd be happy if house prices fall 90%. I did say that it wouldn't have a negative effect on my own personal circumstances if they did because I could then buy a much bigger house. As for the good of the whole - it's probably good if they fall around 40% in nominal terms from peak. This will restore labour force mobility in the economy, allow owner-occupiers to buy a place if they prefer ownership to renting and will also restore yields to something landlords can make a reasonable return from - i.e. their business would be based on the money they receive from the tenants (by providing a good service) rather than economic rent derived through speculation.
It would also teach the reckless to think about the value of money and debt, so there would be a pleasing moral aspect to such a reduction.
Apologies, this is what you actually said:I'd be more than happy if prices fell 90%0 -
Apologies, this is what you actually said:
Yes - I was referring to my individual circumstances. If prices fall 90% then that's good for me (this was in reponse to someone asserting that people with mortgages don't want prices to fall - I pointed out that I have a mortgage and a 90% fall in price would enable me to buy a much bigger house).
It wasn't a statement expressing the the idea that a 90% fall in prices would be good for the economy and the population at large.
However, you keep quoting short excerpts of text and take them completely out of context to try and prove a point if you want.
There are two types of people that contribute to discussions on these boards - the first is the type that tries to gain a better unerstanding of the world around them by engaging in debate - the second type is your type, Pimperne1 - the type that deliberately tries to influence the world with their comments rather than trying to understand it. The truth is, however, that your comments are a complete waste of time because they will never influence whether prices go up or down. The real question is - why do you bother?0 -
Yes - I was referring to my idividual circumstances. If prices fall 90% then that's good for me (this was in reponse to someone asserting that people with mortgages don't want prices to fall - I pointed out that I have a mortgage and a 90% fall in price would enable me to buy a much bigger house).
It wasn't a statement expressing the the idea that a 90% fall in prices would be good for the economy and the population at large.
However, you keep quoting short excerpts of text and take them completely out of context to try and prove a point if you want.
There are two types of people that contribute to discussions on these boards - the first is the type that tries to gain a better unerstanding of the world around them by engaging in debate - the second type is your type, Pimperne1 - the type that deliberately tries to influence the world with their comments rather than trying to understand it. The truth is, however, that your comments are a complete waste of time because they will never influence whether prices go up or down. The question is - why do you bother?
Well thanks for that joe, are you here thinking that your comments will influence whether prices go up or down?0 -
Well thanks for that joe, are you here thinking that your comments will influence whether prices go up or down?
:rotfl:Own Goal there pimp.
Of course the justification the bulls have repeatedly given for being here is that they think bears are trying to influence prices via a locked membership only forum, and are here out of the goodness of their hearts to fight this insidious evil.
Your quite right. They are nutters if they truly think that.0 -
:rotfl:Own Goal there pimp.
Of course the justification the bulls have repeatedly given for being here is that they think bears are trying to influence prices via a locked membership only forum, and are here out of the goodness of their hearts to fight this insidious evil.
Your quite right. They are nutters if they truly think that.
Not quite. Jo said:
"The truth is, however, that your comments are a complete waste of time because they will never influence whether prices go up or down. The question is - why do you bother"?
So I asked him whether he thought his comments would influence whether prices go up or down and he replied "No, of course they won't".
This begs the obvious question.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards