Nationwide- +0.8% MoM +3.9% YoY

chucknorris

92203 wrote: »

[

Bitter words from a man who knows he can't win an argument

What on earth have I to be bitter about? You are the one whinging on the internet about your financial position! The whole forum can see that you are bitter, you even started whinging to me about your position regarding buying a house.

Not once have you been able to address me without a personal attack or insult. You have not been able to answer any of my questions or challenge what I've written.

You write rubbish about wishing people could buy a house on min wage, generally speaking people on min wage will not be able to buy a house. I would imagine that 95% of the people on this forum would instinctively know that. There is no argument you are just at best a misguided fool.

Deep down you know that I'm right, but are too pig headed and self righteous to admit that at least some of your self proclaimed success is down to being born at the right time.

You are totally wrong!

I am surprised that someone of your background isnt capable of debate from either perspective. I suspect that your responses are being led by emotion rather than logic. You are being challenged and you don't feel comfortable.

My whole life is based on logic thought, but I just have no interest in debating with you.

Either way, I am ambivalent towards you. I don't know you well enough to like or dislike you. I hppe that you enjoy your meal

I did enjoy my meal thanks.

chucknorris

Linda_D wrote: »

Someone is extremely bitter that they've been ripped apart in an argument by 92203. Just accept defeat gracefully and move on, you were totally outclassed

So how was I ripped apart? Please explain, especially the part about me being bitter.

ukcarper

Linda_D wrote: »

Someone is extremely bitter that they've been ripped apart in an argument by 92203. Just accept defeat gracefully and move on, you were totally outclassed

Do you really think 92203 has put forward a reasonable argument I don't and he refuses to answer my question as to why he ignores the fact that in relation to earnings prices were higher before the 90s.

chucknorris

ukcarper wrote: »

Decided to repost with correct userid then.

LOL what id was it (you can message it to me if you don't want to say on the forum).

chucknorris

92203 wrote: »

[

Bitter words from a man who knows he can't win an argument

I am surprised that someone of your background isnt capable of debate from either perspective. I suspect that your responses are being led by emotion rather than logic. You are being challenged and you don't feel comfortable.

How on earth can you have a logical argument based upon what we are arguing about, to remind you. I said:

chucknorris wrote: »

EDIT: You expect people on minimum wages to be able to buy houses?

and you replied:

QUOTE=92203;62719778]If house prices weren't so silly, yes. Why should someone on a low minimum wage be excluded from being able to pay a mortgage, safe in the knowledge that when they retire, they can live free of rent.

[/QUOTE]

I am stating that generally speaking (there will be exceptions) it will not be possible for people on min wage to buy a house. But you are saying they would if house prices weren't so high? Backed up by some data that back in 2001 in certain geographical locations it was possible.

But it isn't 2001 it is 2013 and house prices are what they are! What you could do back in 2001 is irrelevant!

System

ukcarper wrote: »

Decided to repost with correct userid then.

Hah, always the same story.

92203

ukcarper wrote: »

Do you really think 92203 has put forward a reasonable argument I don't and he refuses to answer my question as to why he ignores the fact that in relation to earnings prices were higher before the 90s.

Sorry, I missed that one and I am confident that you are wrong.

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/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/8747370/House-prices-in-graphs-and-tables.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.

ruggedtoast

92203 has deflated some of the windsocks on this thread and no mistake!

Graham_Devon

The only post I saw deleted all of a sudden was ukcarpers "why are you posting using a different ID" which quoted a post from the user 92203. Hence, I guess, why carper removed the post.

Not sure if theres actually 2 ID's being used as 92203's post didn't appear to move and only carpers deleted, but could of been due to the time I was reading.

chucknorris

ruggedtoast wrote: »

92203 has deflated some of the windsocks on this thread and no mistake!

I guess you are talking about me so that makes you wrong!