Nationwide- +0.8% MoM +3.9% YoY

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

I hope so as he well knows I am not you.

I do know you are not chuck, which is why I have never said you are...!

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

I can assure you he did.

Oh, OK.

So why did you quote 92203 and then ask why he was using a different ID? Then delete that post after you realised your mistake?

Not having a go, just don't think it's particularly fair to state something that was seen by someone else (me) which didn't actually show anything you are saying.

I can't be making things up as you have agreed the post you wrote was deleted as I said it was.

92203

ukcarper wrote: »

92203 why did you post using other ID I only have one and am prepared to say what I think on that.

I set up an alternate ID called EelSoup some time ago, as I only periodically use this forum. I'd forgotten I even have the 92203 ID when I set it up.. I still had the old ID logged in on my phone, which is what I used to respond to chuck with. It was only when I reread my post for typos that I realised what had happened.

This ID has not been used to engage or argue with Chuck with, though , I did make one post at the beginning of this thread, due to accessing the forum via my phone.

I am happy for the account to be deleted, as I have now got 92203 configured across all my devices.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh, OK.

So why did you quote 92203 and then ask why he was using a different ID? Then delete that post after you realised your mistake?

Not having a go, just don't think it's particularly fair to state something that was seen by someone else (me) which didn't actually show anything you are saying.

Neither have you disagreed that you deleted the post or quoted 92203 while suggesting he had another name.

I didn't the original post I replied to was from a user ID beginning with e.

ukcarper

92203 wrote: »

I set up an alternate ID some time ago, as I only periodically use this forum. I'd forgotten I even have the 92203 ID. I still had the old ID logged in on my phone, which is is what I used to respond to chuck with. It was only when I reread my post for typos that I realised what had happened.

This ID has not been used to engage or argue with Chuck with, though , I did make one post at the beginning of this thread, due to accessing the forum via my phone.

I am happy for the account to be deleted, as I have now got 92203 configured across all my devices.

Fair enough

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

I didn't the original post I replied to was from a user ID beginning with e.

Fair enough, must have been a timing thing.

chucknorris

eelsoup wrote: »

Why is this excellent news?

• Housing has just become less affordable to those who are not already home owners
• For those who don't own their own homes, increasing house prices will go someway to increasing the cost of renting a property too.

What is there to celebrate about an essential need in life becoming less affordable?

Even more so when it is clear that the market is being manipulated by artificial supply constraints, and "electioneered" economic conditions to create another house price boom.

I think it was this id, but his explanation sounds reasonable enough, mistakes happen, no reason for anyone to get over excited. But it does vindicate ukcarper.

Loughton_Monkey

chucknorris wrote: »

I'm getting confused which one of us is supposed to be the sockie? This is quite important because one of us might not exist!

In existentialism, the individual's starting point is characterized by what has been called "the existential attitude", or a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.

From that great oracle wikipedia (so must be true).

Seems to sum it up perfectly.

92203

chucknorris wrote: »

I think it was this id, but his explanation sounds reasonable enough, mistakes happen, no reason for anyone to get over excited. But it does vindicate ukcarper.

Absolutely, and I am happy to hold my hand up in this situation :beer:

Back onto answering UK Carper's question regarding historic vs current house price:earning ratios.

Going by the data I have at my disposal (from a cursory Google search), House price:earnings ratios are still above the peak that they reached at the height of the property bubble which occurred in the late 80s. Historically, excluding the booms, ratios were much lower. This is according to ONS/Nationwide data http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...s.html?image=4

Incidentally, my dad purchased his first house (in York) during the late 1960s for 2.5 times his wage, as a newly qualified teacher.

Irrespective of the cost of buying a house, having more and more money going towards enriching the rentier class at the expense of others is hardly conducive to having a progressive and fair society.

92203

Furthermore, if privately renting is to become the norm. Increased regulation of the market is required, with particular attention being focused on security of tenure and ensuring that repairs and maintenance are performed in a timely manner.

Increased supply is also crucial given current and forecast demographic changes.