Nationwide Jan: +0.7% MoM +8.8% YoY

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

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

Given you love maths can you show your working?

No, quantum entanglement is too complex for you

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

House prices have no correlation to GDP.

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

House prices have no correlation to GDP.

does quantum entanglement or the price of beer in newcastle?

the_flying_pig

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

groan, but FWIW [i.e. very little].

your little lecture came in response to Generali's post #39:

"Eventually a house would cost more than the entire output of the UK. That clearly isn't a tenable position."

there's no mathematical or economic law that tells you generali's statement absolutely must be true, but in a country of over 60m people it certainly chimes with commonsense.

your reply seemed to be something about total spending on housing, rather than the value of a single house, hence "wrong question".

i suppose i said "wrong answer" because, well, for starters, your posts seemed to imply that peter buying a house from paul shows up in GDP figures - this isn't the case, since nothing has been "produced" [the P in GDP] - investment in new houses counts, transfers between people don't. i didn't dig a lot deeper than that.

[edit]

i suppose, thinking through it, that since at least one house of at least average price will pretty much always be built in every year, & that the value of this house does in fact count towards GDP, that your proposition might be right, through the back door, kinda. really no need for algebra, though.

CLAPTON

the_flying_pig wrote: »

groan, but FWIW [i.e. very little].

your little lecture came in response to Generali's post #39:

"Eventually a house would cost more than the entire output of the UK. That clearly isn't a tenable position."

there's no mathematical or economic law that tells you generali's statement absolutely must be true, but in a country of over 60m people it certainly chimes with commonsense.

your reply seemed to be something about total spending on housing, rather than the value of a single house, hence "wrong question".

i suppose i said "wrong answer" because, well, for starters, your posts seemed to imply that peter buying a house from paul shows up in GDP figures - this isn't the case, since nothing has been "produced" [the P in GDP] - investment in new houses counts, transfers between people don't. i didn't dig a lot deeper than that.

[edit]

i suppose, thinking through it, that since at least one house of at least average price will pretty much always be built in every year, & that the value of this house does in fact count towards GDP, that your proposition might be right, through the back door, kinda. really no need for algebra, though.

I stated a clear question and gave a clear correct answer

if the question doesn't interest you then that's fine

would you like to discus quantum entanglement instead?