Nationwide Jan: +0.7% MoM +8.8% YoY

grizzly1911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes.

Still in single digits, still below previous nominal peak, and massively below the previous real terms peak.

This so called 'boom' is showing a distinct lack of ambition so far....:)

A real terms peak that was built on easy money. More like the last bubble.

On the basis that nothing else has kept pace in the intervening period (and hoping it might in the future is reckless)the consequences are inevitable in all but the bit of UK being sold to the East.

CLAPTON

the_flying_pig wrote: »

not sure what the appropriate smiley is here but, in short, i disagree with this.

let GDP = H + N
where H = housing spending (used as a proxy for house prices)
and N = other (non housing spending)


let w = % increase in GDP after 1 year


so GPD1 = GPD (1+W) = H1 + N1


if people are willing (in real terms ) to keep their non housing spending constant then N1 = N


so H1 = GDP (1+W) -N


so % change H is (H1-H)/H


i.e. ((H+N) x(1+W) -N - H)/H


= W + NW/H


so % increase in housing is equal to % increase in GDP (W) plus a factor NW/H which is always positive if GDP growth is positive


so growth in housing will be more than growth in GDP


this can be repeated for many years and you can show housing will asymptotically approach but never reach GDP




in English what it is saying is this;
as people get richer they MAY choose to spend the increase in income on improving their housing rather than other things (i.e. they may already have enough food, clothing, hot water, holidays, booze,cars etc ).


of course people may not but if they do then house price can keep rising at a faster rate than GDP growth


one can rework the equation to show what happens if people choose to increase N but by less than W : this will show a slower growth in housing spending but it will still increase faster than GDP growth

Dan:_4

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Dan. CarolT was the victim of sustained bullying. Particularly at the hands of that nasty piece of work, Dithering Dad.

You should not celebrate her departure.

Brit is updating his sig.

!!!!!! joined the army.

CarolT and !!!!!! were by far the biggest bullies on this forum back in the day.

ruggedtoast

CarolT vanished without trace in October 2010.

This was her very last post:

Gosh, v little comment, considering its importance...

My only observation was that Osborne sound remarkably like the youth playing Pitt the Younger in Blackadder. That kept striking me as I listened, meaning that I'd then miss the next few sentences while I marvelled at this. Anyone else find this?

I liked the Equitable Life thing - way too late, but at least we are finally doing the decent thing.

Will she return?

Where have the years gone?

ruggedtoast

Golly, looking at her posting history she was a feisty old duck wasn't she.

Generali

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Golly, looking at her posting history she was a feisty old duck wasn't she.

She could give it but couldn't take it back. Very thin skinned for such an abrasive poster.

ruggedtoast

Generali wrote: »

She could give it but couldn't take it back. Very thin skinned for such an abrasive poster.

Apparently so. She did start the Nice People thread though.

Which in my opinion counts against her.

the_flying_pig

CLAPTON wrote: »

let GDP = H + N
where H = housing spending (used as a proxy for house prices)
and N = other (non housing spending)


let w = % increase in GDP after 1 year


so GPD1 = GPD (1+W) = H1 + N1


if people are willing (in real terms ) to keep their non housing spending constant then N1 = N


so H1 = GDP (1+W) -N


so % change H is (H1-H)/H


i.e. ((H+N) x(1+W) -N - H)/H


= W + NW/H


so % increase in housing is equal to % increase in GDP (W) plus a factor NW/H which is always positive if GDP growth is positive


so growth in housing will be more than growth in GDP


this can be repeated for many years and you can show housing will asymptotically approach but never reach GDP




in English what it is saying is this;
as people get richer they MAY choose to spend the increase in income on improving their housing rather than other things (i.e. they may already have enough food, clothing, hot water, holidays, booze,cars etc ).


of course people may not but if they do then house price can keep rising at a faster rate than GDP growth


one can rework the equation to show what happens if people choose to increase N but by less than W : this will show a slower growth in housing spending but it will still increase faster than GDP growth

that's the wrong answer to the wrong question, but I always appreciate a bit of maths so fair enough :T

CLAPTON

the_flying_pig wrote: »

that's the wrong answer to the wrong question, but I always appreciate a bit of maths so fair enough :T

all answers are inappropriate to some questions

in this case the question was
'can house prices increase at a faster rate than the growth in GDP indefinitely?'


the answer is 'yes' although eventually it will become very close to the growth in GDP


if your question was about quantum entanglement or the price of beer in newcastle then I agree it probably does not help

wotsthat

the_flying_pig wrote: »

that's the wrong answer to the wrong question, but I always appreciate a bit of maths so fair enough :T

Don't be coy. What's the right question and correct answer?

Given you love maths can you show your working?