The inevitable fall in house prices will cost us dear

chucky

OffGridLiving wrote: »

How many times does it have to be said that London is not the UK?

In the majority of the UK you have to have a recovery before you have a boom.

You will probably have to say it quite a few times.

The same old threads and subjects are posted with the usual suspects [STRIKE]hoping[/STRIKE] expecting a house price crash. They just don't get it and probably never will understand the dynamics or even understand basic maths...

CLAPTON

Conrad wrote: »

Enterprise has been set free thanks to dozens of Tory initiatives and the dismantling of Labours enterprise crushing regulations that lead to small business people like me not wanting to indulge in Russian roulette with employment tribunals.

which ones are these

I can remember some new equal rights/gender equality employment laws, changes to contractor status, leave for fathers but I can't remember the repeal of much

OffGridLiving

Devon seems to have ghosted out of this thread. Rest assured though he'll be on a different thread spouting the same nonsense with the same unreserved arrogance as he does here. Then people will pick him apart and he'll ghost to a different thread. Rest assured though he'll be spouting the same....

Groundhog day.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

In accounting, would you compound profit to come up with an average profit growth rate over the previous, say, 3 years?

I understand compounding, but don't understand why you would do so when looking at the average growth rate over a set period.

Were not talking about the average yearly rate of HPI here, which is what Loughton has worked out. Were talking about the average growth rate over a set period. I don't think I'm digging a hole here, as I've seen it expressed this way on numerous financials. And indeed, David Blanchflower has taken the same route.

You definitely would Graham. If you define a period, for example 5% pa, then cover multiple periods then by default it includes compounding.

This is especially true when looking at something like average growth rate. Because the growth rate pa is the % change between price at the start of year and end of year (both of which are calculated and must include compounding).

I have £1, next year I have £2, year after £3 then £4. The growth rate over that period is not 100% (300% / 3) it is ~60% (100% in first year, 50% in 2nd year and 33.3% in 3rd).

Thrugelmir

Conrad wrote: »

He simply fails to spot we're in an unprecedented prosperity expansion era as I am at pains to keep pointing out.

Perhaps you need to get out and see the real world more. Appreciate the ever increasing division in wealth in society.

chucky

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Perhaps you need to get out and see the real world more. Appreciate the ever increasing division in wealth in society.

Your local area Swindon, isn't the world...

Loughton_Monkey

N1AK wrote: »

You definitely would Graham......

....


I have £1, next year I have £2, year after £3 then £4. The growth rate over that period is not 100% (300% / 3) it is ~60% (100% in first year, 50% in 2nd year and 33.3% in 3rd).

And to continue the lesson...

If, in 2010 I paid 28% of my income on tax, in 2011 24%, and then 23% in 2012, then my average tax rate over that period can only be expressed as 26% [28+24+23]/3. Compounding doesn't enter into it and it can't realistically be expressed any other way.

ps... How long do you think it might take us to get Graham through his 11 plus?

chucky

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

And to continue the lesson...

If, in 2010 I paid 28% of my income on tax, in 2011 24%, and then 23% in 2012, then my average tax rate over that period can only be expressed as 26% [28+24+23]/3. Compounding doesn't enter into it and it can't realistically be expressed any other way.

ps... How long do you think it might take us to get Graham through his 11 plus?

It's pointless, I've tried to educate the poor man before but he wasn't having it. It's best to leave the less intelligent types, they're not 'learners' and usually living a fantasy life online.

N1AK wrote: »

As someone with an education on statistics, I can tell you that a clear sign of someone with no understanding of the field is a belief that either some or many have a statistical value, or relate to a statistical average.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=42366362&postcount=88

IveSeenTheLight

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

And to continue the lesson...

If, in 2010 I paid 28% of my income on tax, in 2011 24%, and then 23% in 2012, then my average tax rate over that period can only be expressed as 26% [28+24+23]/3. Compounding doesn't enter into it and it can't realistically be expressed any other way.

ps... How long do you think it might take us to get Graham through his 11 plus?

Quick, you've made a typo.
Better change it before you get called on your arithmetic skills

N1AK

chucky wrote:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=42366362&postcount=88

Thanks for that. I'd forgotten you thought that statisticians used some and many as SI's :rotfl:

If you're that way inclined I'd love to see some more of your blunders. There was an excellent one the other day, your lack of comprehension was as staggering as you unjustified self-confidence, of but I can't quite muster the motivation to find it myself.