The next boom.....

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

If it doesn't matter why can't you move on?

The start point of the graph isn't in dispute. You only dispute WHY we're here.

Ignore Hamish's world view and use your own to predict the next few years. I genuinely think you agree that above inflation rises are more likely than not.

If you don't agree then why all the fuss about Help To Buy and the inflating bubble?

You asked for debate.

Now that you have debate, you seem to be implying that if something is put up for debate we shouldn't debate it unless we agree.

Look at the highlighted words...."Move on, ignore, if you don't agree". You wrote them. I just conected them.

Which is fine I guess, but not sure why you then call for debate to be had.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

OK Graham, lets rephrase it in a way that doesn't sidetrack the debate with semantics.

1) UK house prices rose primarily as a result of supply shortages.

2) UK house prices fell primarily as a result of damage caused to the lending system by external events, which resulted in a mortgage famine and dysfunctionality.

3) The UK government and BOE are now repairing the damaged lending system and restoring functionality, and the mortgage famine is ending as a result.

4) What do you think will happen to UK house prices, especially given the pre-existing shortage has now worsened over the last 5 years worth of 1), 2) and 3) above......

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

1) UK house prices rose primarily as a result of supply shortages.

2) UK house prices fell primarily as a result of damage caused to the lending system by external events, which resulted in a mortgage famine and dysfunctionality.

3) The UK government and BOE are now repairing the damaged lending system and restoring functionality, and the mortgage famine is ending as a result.

4) What do you think will happen to UK house prices, especially given the pre-existing shortage has now worsened over the last 5 years worth of 1), 2) and 3) above......

1. You didn't even mention the availiability of debt, which seems to ignore a HUGE aspect.

2. You've now mentioned the avaliability of debt, which renders your first point pointless, as, if as you said in point 1, house prices rose due to supply...house prices would have rose further when supply fell off a cliff....they didn't. So obviously you'd need to re-look at point 1. You can't ignore the debt in point 1 and then blame the lack of debt in point 2 for the fall in prices.

3. Agreed. Though I wouldn't claim it was a repair. A repair actually repairs something. This is replacing a system.

4. House prices will rise while this new system is in place.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote:

With respect you don't appear to willing to debate but are doing as much as you can to avoid having to comment on Hamish's view of the future.

You've expressed your view on why prices fell so does this make your view of the future radically different to Hamish. Is it that difficult to admit?

With respect, I can't really do much more to debate. I'm answering every point Hamish and yourself put forward.

I can't really do much more to be fair, so being confronted with that is a little bizzare. As I said, can't win. You asked for debate, you got debate and now you are simply saying I'm not debating?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

With respect, I can't really do much more to debate. I'm answering every point Hamish and yourself put forward.

I can't really do much more to be fair, so being confronted with that is a little bizzare. As I said, can't win. You asked for debate, you got debate and now you are simply saying I'm not debating?

I actually deleted that last post as I didn't notice you'd agreed that house prices were going to rise. You quoted it too quickly for me.

It's interesting. For all the arguing it appears that you agree with Hamish's view of the future for the same reasons the only difference being objections to the way sentences are constructed or adjectives used.

Prices rising, cheap mortgages, improving economy, interest free loans - no wonder FTB's are being coaxed out.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I actually deleted that last post as I didn't notice you'd agreed that house prices were going to rise. You quoted it too quickly for me.

LOL

So if I agree house prices will rise, what you said doesn't count?!

Well that's gonna make life easier in the future.

I'll stick "house prices are going to rise" in my sig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

1. You didn't even mention the availiability of debt, which seems to ignore a HUGE aspect.

The availability of debt certainly affects the number of people that can buy... It doesn't change the fact there's a massive housing shortage though.

As we've seen through the last 5 years of mortgage rationing, but rents soaring to all time record highs instead, because the housing shortage remained despite mortgage rationing.

So to the extent that a normal, functioning, lending market is absolutely a pre-requisite to a normal, functioning housing market, the availability of debt is of course important.

It should absolutely be the default position in a modern society that an ordinary person can easily get an ordinary mortgage with a historically normal, prudent and sensible 5% to 10% deposit.

Anything other than that, like 5 years of "severe mortgage rationing" as the BBC article put it, or a mortgage market that is "dysfunctional" as the Council of Mortgage Lenders described it, is obviously a broken system that needs repaired.

2. You've now mentioned the avaliability of debt, which renders your first point pointless, as, if as you said in point 1, house prices rose due to supply...house prices would have rose further when supply fell off a cliff....they didn't. So obviously you'd need to re-look at point 1. You can't ignore the debt in point 1 and then blame the lack of debt in point 2 for the fall in prices.

See above.

The availability of mortgages to ordinary people should absolutely be a default position in a modern society.

So 5 years of "severe mortgage rationing" is abnormal and dysfunctional, and the sudden removal of 70% of funding almost overnight because of external factors (ie, nothing to do with UK mortgage defaults, profitability, etc) will cause prices in ANY market to crash, despite the fundamentals of there being a massive housing shortage and reasonable affordability.

The fact that prices have remained at just 10% below peak for the last 5 years of mortgage rationing, despite lending falling by 70%, demonstrates clearly that it wasn't lending that drove prices higher, but rather a good old fashioned shortage.

3. Agreed. Though I wouldn't claim it was a repair. A repair actually repairs something. This is replacing a system.

4. House prices will rise while this new system is in place.

This is obviously repairing a broken system, and restoring functionality to the mortgage market.

And yes, house prices will obviously rise once more normal mortgage lending resumes, because the supply shortage hasn't gone away.

In fact it's been worsened by 5 years of a mortgage famine.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL

So if I agree house prices will rise, what you said doesn't count?!

Well that's gonna make life easier in the future.

I'll stick "house prices are going to rise" in my sig

I'd accused you of not being able to agree with Hamish. I then noticed you agreed fully bar the semantics so withdrew the post.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It is pure fiction.

Some people aren't really very intelligent.

It's a prediction, of course it's fiction. You really are slow aren't you.

At least you've got a little allie in Miserly AllMyPredictionsHaveBeenWrong Martin.

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

Hamish's graph looks like pure fiction.

chucky

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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?

He's bitter because he's a product of his environment. His life hasn't gone how he hoped it would which means he is not the happiest...