OECD calls for restrictions on help to buy

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Graham_Devon wrote: »

On a seondary note - this is being discussed on 5 live at the moment. The confidence issue of HTB has been discussed and accepted as one of the reasons for the HPI we have seen. Removing HTB would pull that confidence out and we could face falls again.....which is a double edged sword as the taxpayer could then face losses on the loans.

Those disagreeing with this appear to be the odd ones out in the wider debate here.

Correlation <> Causation

Argumentum ad populum
:doh::doh:

MrRee_2

Generali wrote: »

Actually I read MrRee's post as supporting your position as unlikely as it may seem.

Indeed I was supporting Mr Devon's position as posting to stir debate.

I do think we need to also realise that whatever we say here changes nothing ... it's simply a talking shop - but it does get some things off everyone's mind

The Devonomics (the economic argument of the madman) are flawed, but that's OK - we can put it straight.

mayonnaise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Those disagreeing with this appear to be the odd ones out in the wider debate here.

The popularity argument.
Latin : "Argumentum ad populum"

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Equally, those getting lots of applause on Question Time must be right.

EDIT : Jack Johnson the acorn beat me to it.

Graham_Devon

mayonnaise wrote: »

The popularity argument.
Latin : "Argumentum ad populum"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Equally, those getting lots of applause on Question Time must be right.

EDIT : Jack Johnson the acorn beat me to it.

So basically, no matter who is saying it, no matter how many are saying it.....they are all wrong?

All you are doing here is finding ways of ignoring the ever increasing concern by attempting to put everything into neat little boxes of irrelevance.

There are definitions for every argument you can come up with, including your [referred method of ignoring everything that doesn't suit.

Fine if that's what you need to do, but I fail to see why you would come to a discussion forum to simply come up with ways of ignoring all discussion on here and in the wider press that doesn't suit your viewpoint.

I can do the same as you. It's called belief persistence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance#Persistence_of_discredited_beliefs

What are we going to do now weve put each other in little boxes?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's nice, but clearly I was talking overall house price charts. I can't possibly reference every single local area in the discussion....and neither would any half reasonable debate.

Well you did say look at any chart so I did. Apart from London and the South East where prices, although on the up, accelerated in mid-2013 I don't think there's any evidence of a house price spike when HTB was announced in any region of the UK. Even you haven't got the gall to assert London & SE HPI has much to do with HTB.

Had a look at Nationwide in case that's what you were talking about but they started increasing in December 2012.

You're interested in reasonable debate - why not post some evidence of your assertion that prices rose dramatically as soon as HTB was announced.

Bantex_2

Rather that HTB etc, why don't the government use a bank they own (RBS) to offer 95% mortgages? Seems much simpler.

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So basically, no matter who is saying it, no matter how many are saying it.....they are all wrong?
.....

No.

To argue that a particular proposition is true because "many are saying it" is an example of the popularity argument

To argue that a particular proposition is true because of "who is saying it" is an example of the ethos argument.

They are both rhetorical advices. Their deployment has no bearing on whether or not a particular proposition is true.

I still think that rhetoric should be on the national curriculum.:)

,

MrRee_2

Ignore the Devonomics .... this is taken from The Guardian:-

"No one in the press seems to have realised that HTB2 is not being used by ANYBODY.

HTB2 aimed to get the housing market moving again.

It succeeded, but not because everyone flocked to take out government-subsidised 95% mortgages. It succeeded because everyone else mistakenly expected that to happen and tried to beat the rush, creating the bubble they were all expecting in the process.

Less than 1700 people had used HTB2 within the first 6 months.

That's less than 1% of the market.

That's barely more than 1% of FTBs (25k/month according to the CML).

I highly doubt removing HTB2 would make any difference anymore.

The psychological damage had been done before it was even implemented"

Quite correct ....

mayonnaise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I can do the same as you. It's called belief persistence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance#Persistence_of_discredited_beliefs
What are we going to do now weve put each other in little boxes?

From your link:

Confirmation biases can be used to explain why some beliefs persist when the initial evidence for them is removed

Initial evidence wasn't removed from me at all. I even posted it. (Halifax HTB data).

chucky

wotsthat wrote: »

You're interested in reasonable debate - why not post some evidence of your assertion that prices rose dramatically as soon as HTB was announced.

You will be waiting a long time.

A few users have posted data from different areas backing up the point and cancelling out his weak argument.

It's a bit of a statement that house prices rose exactly when HTB was introduced and not be able to back it up.