The next boom.....

chewmylegoff

Thrugelmir wrote: »

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Why are you picking a peak (1975) and a trough* (2013) /

If the forward projection for the next 20 years is 2.9% based on the trend line 1975 -2013. Then it's like saying the distortion created by the credit boom never happened. I'm merely pointing out that the trend is already downwards.

The housing market has gone through a series of booms and busts. Whatever the reasons for the booms or the busts you can't just ignore them. A trend line from the top of a boom to the bottom of a bust is obviously invalid in the same way that if I were to draw a line fr the bottom of the 80s bust to the peak in 2007 that line would be meaningless.

Basically, as I understand it, your case is that 1975 to 2007 (peak to peak) was 4% and 1975 to 2013 (peak to trough) is 2.9% therefore we can expect future growth to be less than 2.9%?

So basically you're saying that because prices fell 2007 to 2013 that future growth will be below the historic trend line?

Just makes no sense at all to me. On that basis anyone looking at prices in 2006 would have confidently predicted that future growth would be above the historic trend line.

Pimperne1

Can't keep a good man off the HPC website:

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=193065

On Hamish they say:

Over 15,000 posts on MSE for which he has been thanked 10,000 times -- Thank
goodness we didn't have to read them.

I think they mean thanked 27k times.....

Nearly 1200 views in three hours, the message might be getting across.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

:rotfl:

That's priceless.

They're so numerically illiterate, they can't even understand a simple thanks count.

No wonder they got it so badly wrong about house prices.

System

Distinct lack of Bruce Spanner acting like a total goon which is a shame.

MiserlyMartin

Conrad wrote: »

.

We just do most things a lot better, whether it's Radio 4 or the SAS, worldwide weather info or studying climate change.

What other nation has a David Attenborough or a Richard Dawkins, a Will Self or a Ricky Gervais? Sure the Chinese work long hours bolting cshit together and learning like parrots but are they truly world leaders and trend setters in the main?

There wont be a brain drain, this is one of the best and safest places on Earth to invest and our creativity and science are unsurpassed.

Just a few points here. Climate change is an opinion, not a study. Perhaps this should have read, "We are better at spreading the global warming/ climate change con trick."
Those you mention Attenborough etc, of course nobody else has them - they are British. You only mention them because you know of them, the foriegners don't give a stuff, they have their own celebs.
And Radio 4 well, the BBC's days are numbered, the TV tax is very outdated, soon they will have to compete without enforced tax payer funding.

MiserlyMartin

Going back to the original topic. Hamish's graph looks like pure fiction. I think wishful thinking on his part. How many houses has he got now?

Graham_Devon

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

Going back to the original topic. Hamish's graph looks like pure fiction. I think wishful thinking on his part. How many houses has he got now?

It is pure fiction.

It's a graph pulled from elsewhere and doctored in an imagine programme. He actually sat there, spending his time doctoring images in order to post it on here!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

Hamish's graph looks like pure fiction.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It is pure fiction.

Well..... duh.

Funnily enough, ALL visual illustrations of what the future may look like are.....

Until it happens.

I'm prepared to bet that my estimates of the future will be a lot closer to the mark than either of yours though.

MiserlyMartin

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It is pure fiction.

It's a graph pulled from elsewhere and doctored in an imagine programme. He actually sat there, spending his time doctoring images in order to post it on here!

Very sad and greed induced. We are all here to invest but to do it from pricing out FTB's even movers is morally wrong. He even thinks that putting money in the bank is wrong, that expecting a 'risk free return' is wrong and the FSCS scheme. You couldn't make it up...

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

We are all here to invest but to do it from pricing out FTB's even movers is morally wrong.

Yes, it's obviously much better to exclude them from getting mortgages and so force over a million people to buy a house for their landlord instead of themselves.

As that's what you and your ilk have been cheering on for the last 5 years.

You couldn't make it up...

Well, quite.