The next boom.....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Why so grumpy Graham?

You're coming across as a fair bit more bitter than usual these days.

Why not just admit you were wrong and accept the inevitable.

After all, surely you knew that eventually the bad times would end and the good times begin again?

chucknorris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

How generous.

I used the word 'tend' because I wasn't a 100% certain that there wasn't at least one example proving otherwise, if you found one it would probably be against someone I despise, and I can only think one poster that fits that description.

See even now you are trying to argue/score points when I posted a non aggressive explanatory post and even now I am still adopting that stance.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

His "prediction" has taken a graph, doctored it to add his own words, and then posted it as "something".

As I said, if I did that, you would all have a field day. Infact it has already happened several times, due to "that graph" which you all say isn't a graph, isn't a prediction, isn't anything. Yet Hamish doctors it and it's valid.

You have a field day over a spelling mistake, let alone a graph as absurd as that.

But as it's Hamish, it's all OK.

Confirmation bias I believe they call it. Something I am accused of if I should take a graph from even an economist, let alone my own in house doctored nonsense.

Little point to this forum really anymore is there? Even you have decided simply to retort to insults at every available opportunity.

Debate it then. What are the assumptions being made that are invalid? What do you think might be a more reasonable figure? Why?

Think it's too far in the future to make anything like a valid prediction? Just say so.

When you next complain about insults just take a look at your last post

Will just provide a platform for more dribble mouthed nonsense & hypocrisy

It's house prices we're debating not late term abortions - get a grip.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Debate it then. What are the assumptions being made that are invalid? What do you think might be a more reasonable figure? Why?

OK...

Sorry, but, the graph points out the "artificial crash".

Artificial!? I mean, where do you even start with that level of absurdity.

What was artificial about it? It seems to me to be, based on the descriptive before it, that the "artificial" aspect was that the boom simply didn't continue.

So if people seriously want to debate it, I'm up for it. But we would need to start there, as until it's described that was artificial about the crash (thereby, making all crashes in history artificial by nature too) we cannot debate any further. To do so, we would have to assume that forced booms through money creation are simply natural.

I mean, seriously, how can you debate about something that labels the crash as artifical, but the stimulus to "repair" it as "the governments job".

We are debating absolute extreme mindsets here.

chucknorris

For the record I stated earlier on this thread that I didn't agree with Hamish's 'prediction':

chucknorris wrote: »

I tend to agree with you, I think house prices rise on the back of a successful economy rather than drive it. I'm not as optimistic as Hamish, I think that in real terms prices won't reach much higher than 2007 without good reason. At the moment I can't see what would drive prices much higher (in real terms) than 2007, surely affordability was quite stretched then. I hope history proves Hamish right but at the moment I just can't see it.

System

So it's the words describing what has already happened that upsets you rather than the prediction itself?

Odd.

Graham_Devon

Joeskeppi wrote: »

So it's the words describing what has already happened that upsets you rather than the prediction itself?

Odd.

Nothing is "upsetting me".

I've been asked to debate it. So I have. If this is the response, what on earth is the point? Straight away it's dragged back to the gutter.

The words ARE the prediction. They are the descriptor used to create the reason for the prediction.

If you can't therefore ask what the words mean, were a bit lost as to how it can be debated.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

OK...

Sorry, but, the graph points out the "artificial crash".

Artificial!? I mean, where do you even start with that level of absurdity.

We are debating absolute extreme mindsets here.

Just remove the word artificial - can't see it makes that much difference.

A crash caused by mortgage rationing vs an artificial crash caused by mortgage rationing. Does it matter?

I thought you'd be quibbling about mortgage rationing per se to be honest rather than the adjective used to describe mortgage rationing.

System

Looks to me like you're trying to find reason not to debate it to me. The point of the graph and subject of debate is the line and what it shows, not Hamish's interpetation of what happened previously which is irrelevant in this context anyway.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Just remove the word artificial - can't see it makes that much difference.

A crash caused by mortgage rationing vs an artificial crash caused by mortgage rationing. Does it matter?

I thought you'd be quibbling about mortgage rationing per se to be honest rather than the adjective used to describe mortgage rationing.

Though "mortgage rationing" was a response to the crash. It didn't cause the crash.

Therein lies another problem with the OP's thoughts.

As I said, I'm all for debating it and still am....but can't debate if you guys won't let it happen after asking for the debate.