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!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Btl
Comments
-
DannyRadclif wrote: »There could be a bunch of people wanting to live in every property available but if none of them can pay the high prices the property stays empty.
This has been argued a lot lately.
If times are tight people will prioritise.
It may be worth looking at this post
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=52741751&postcount=32:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »This has been argued a lot lately.
If times are tight people will prioritise.
It may be worth looking at this post
Yes this has been argued a lot lately.
If times are tight people will prioritise 1 meal a day bunch of lazy so and so's.
It may be worth looking at this post, and trying to understand how serious the situation will be when the big benefit caps come in next year. To say if times are tight, shows a lack of understanding of just how the global crisis is deteriorating.Predicting what will happen with rents is very difficult. In my opinion even more complex than house prices. As we don't have an epidemic of homelessness in the UK at the moment it implies that we have sufficient supply to cover demand (though some demand may be mitigated by sharing property). On that basis if housing benefits and incomes are squeezed then rents should decrease and lower rents are very likely to decrease property prices (landlords trying to get out of the rental market).
If rents do not come down a long way when the big benefit cuts come in next year then we could see an epidemic of homelessness in the UK. I personally see rents coming down as the more likely reality.:cool:
Who knows, maybe rents will continue to rise and people will just stop eating
Yes bunch of lazy benefit scroungers, they should be on 1 meal a day its their fault for being in a low paid job. They should sleep less as well and get a night job so that rents do not come down next year when the big benefit caps come in.It is basic supply and demand and the demand keeps arriving and the rate at which it is arriving is increasing.
This demand that keeps arriving on our shores that you talk about, of course they came over on the back of a lorry with a plastic bag over their head to not get caught by boarder agents, but they had pockets overflowing with cash. Easily enough to keep rents and property prices held up where they are.Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam0 -
apparently according to Thuglemeir it has nothing to do with it. he doesn't like being corrected btw, he get a bit angry...DannyRadclif wrote: »Supply/demand of property is only part of the picture.0 -
Keep it up wtfster, still very bitter i see...Are you just plain stupid? You have a go at me for insulting you then you do exactly the same thing, in your broken semi-coherent English.
Are you still avoiding the point just like Thruglmeir is saying that market forces have nothing to with demand and supply.
By the way speak to you parents about you not being intelligent they may help but then again they probably weren't too bright either....0 -
Thanks Negs, no I'm not living with Dan.Negative_Equity wrote: »Welcome back Chucky. By the way, are you still living with Dan?
What was your previous User Id before February 2012?0 -
Why are you being like Thruglemeir and WTFster and avoiding questions?Negative_Equity wrote: »I'm really sad to hear that you two lads split up. You two definitely had something special going on for a while there.What was your previous User Id before February 2012?0 -
I don't subscribe to armageddon, tin hat theories.DannyRadclif wrote: »Yes this has been argued a lot lately.
If times are tight people will prioritise 1 meal a day bunch of lazy so and so's.....................
I've explained (or tried to) that people will prioritise their expenditure and articulated that there are many things that people could spend less on before affecting how many times they eat etc.
Be realistic. If you need to tighten your belt, what expenditure could you reprioritise from before your looking to facilitate only one meal per day.
I for one would sell the computer / get rid of the internet and use that savings to create budget foods.:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
chucknorris wrote: »Damn! Barcelona have just scored!
Double damn, Terry sent off!
Oh NO! They've had it now.0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »I don't subscribe to armageddon, tin hat theories.
I've explained (or tried to) that people will prioritise their expenditure and articulated that there are many things that people could spend less on before affecting how many times they eat etc.
Be realistic. If you need to tighten your belt, what expenditure could you reprioritise from before your looking to facilitate only one meal per day.
I for one would sell the computer / get rid of the internet and use that savings to create budget foods.
So it is the return to the good old Victorian era again that you seem so keen to push ISTL. Great.0 -
Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one birdThe only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistakeChuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".I've started running again, after several injuries had forced me to stop0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards