London increased by 12.4% in 2015

Jason74

TheeMaskedTurnip wrote: »

I call it putting your money where your mouth is. If you complain about high house prices then start the ball rolling and sell yours for its 2002 price. Otherwise put a sock in it.

I've already explained why that is a ridiculous statement , so can't be bothered discussing this extremely silly point further. In the context of some of the posts on this thread, it's quite relevant that a while ago I posted this

Jason74 wrote:

Indeed, I would suggest that the increasing focus on HPC is part of a wider fall in standards of debate on here recently, driven in large part imho by one or two very bullish posters (not that there's anything wrong with being bullish, it's just a case of how you go about it) who, while long registered, appear to have become much more active on this board in the last couple of Months. If that trend continues, there is imho a real danger that this board becomes effectively just the "equal and opposite reaction" to HPC, which would imho be a real shame.

I must admit that when I posted this I was thinking first and foremost of Western Promise and one other poster (and certainly his posts on this thread illustrate why I had come to that conclusion) but your post above is also an excellent example. This place really is just becoming the bull equivalent of HPC over the past few months (just without the banning), which is a shame.

chucknorris

Moby wrote: »

Rent controls now!:T

Because it worked so well last time, what could possibly go wrong?

Graham_Devon

westernpromise wrote: »

The "socio-economic response" is either the state (which makes things worse) or the sum of individuals' actions.

If someone thinks prices are too high, you can either sell for what you think they should be, or not sell and accept that you actually agree with these values but want to signal a bit of virtue. Alternatively, demand that other people be taxed.

It's simply not "either or" as you point out.

This is exactly the reason I said your arguments are a bit silly earlier. They have become a bit more than that now, IMO.

We've had the argument that "you should sell your house for a lower price" on here so many times. It appears to be the argument "get out clause" when all rationale is lost.

One person selling their house for a lower price does, well, absolutely nothing bar barring re-entry into the housing market for that person.

That person may be willing to sell for 30k less than a previous value if all other houses had fallen the equivalent amount. That is the point people are making and the point that seems to fly way over the top of your head. I personally don't think you can't fathom the argument out - you are clearly more intellectual than that - so the only reason left must be blind ignorance in the face of an argument you don't care to have - so make stupid points instead.

However, if prices on average haven't lowered, you are simply cutting your nose off to spite your face. That would be an incredibly stupid thing to do - hence it's an incredibly stupid argument.

I find it bizzare that a handful of, otherwise intelligent people on this forum would rather go around pretending they don't get this and acting incredibly dumb in order to avoid having to debate with a decent point.

mwpt

Jason74 wrote: »

I must admit that when I posted this I was thinking first and foremost of Western Promise and one other poster (and certainly his posts on this thread illustrate why I had come to that conclusion) but your post above is also an excellent example. This place really is just becoming the bull equivalent of HPC over the past few months (just without the banning), which is a shame.

I haven't been here all that long. I have had some interesting debates, learned some things but unfortunately my experience echoes this.

Prime example recently for me is going through the effort of constructing a cash flow spreadsheet to demonstrate my argument that buying at low multiples and high rates is better than buying the reverse. I showed that over paying and paying down quickly was far easier on low multiples. I constructed the example in exactly the method you'd expect, taking an arbitrary point in time, keeping everything constant except the interest rate and the house multiples (so repayments per month were the same), since this is what we were testing for.

What I got in return was the usual twisting and turning and avoidance and even a question that I kept salary the same. I face palmed in real life at that point. I would like to discuss a counter example spreadsheet showing actual cash flows and facts but I don't think the group think clones (#1-6) are interested in that.

On the other hand some of the arguments they present are so nonsensical that it does make me realise I don't have to take much of what they say seriously.

wotsthat

Jason74 wrote: »

Well as an aside, I haven't bought in at those prices as I haven't bought a property since 2002, but I acknowledge that's splitting hairs somewhat as I doubtless will "buy and sell at those prices" in the future. But that's not a comment on the desirability or otherwise of price levels, it's accepting of the reality if I want to live in London.

That doesn't change the fact that price levels are crazy, and that the craziness is impacting on a lot of people's life chances. It's the responsibility of Government at all levels to better address the situation than they are doing at present. And much as you hate the idea, a key part of that must be large scale building of social housing to address the failure in the market.

I think we need more houses and we should and could do it with less rather than more state.

Apart from that we're in broad agreement.

IMO moralising is detracting from your argument because trying to persuade people is made more difficult by !!!!ing them off.

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

A totally nonsensical argument. It's like saying that children who object against child labour but have to partake in the system because their family needs food are morally wrong to do so.

People need to live in a home, they have no choice but to partake in the system in some form. They could rent at high prices or buy at high prices.

So your heightened moral position is based on 'objecting' to things but doesn't extend to your behaviour.

Thanks for the Sunday sermon.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

So your heightened moral position is based on 'objecting' to things but doesn't extend to your behaviour.

Thanks for the Sunday sermon.

You've taken a lot from his post.

Seemed to me he was suggesting that you were writing a load of guff - which is true.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's simply not "either or" as you point out.

This is exactly the reason I said your arguments are a bit silly earlier. They have become a bit more than that now, IMO.

We've had the argument that "you should sell your house for a lower price" on here so many times. It appears to be the argument "get out clause" when all rationale is lost.

One person selling their house for a lower price does, well, absolutely nothing bar barring re-entry into the housing market for that person.

That person may be willing to sell for 30k less than a previous value if all other houses had fallen the equivalent amount. That is the point people are making and the point that seems to fly way over the top of your head. I personally don't think you can't fathom the argument out - you are clearly more intellectual than that - so the only reason left must be blind ignorance in the face of an argument you don't care to have - so make stupid points instead.

However, if prices on average haven't lowered, you are simply cutting your nose off to spite your face. That would be an incredibly stupid thing to do - hence it's an incredibly stupid argument.

I find it bizzare that a handful of, otherwise intelligent people on this forum would rather go around pretending they don't get this and acting incredibly dumb in order to avoid having to debate with a decent point.

We've established that people who would welcome lower prices are unwilling to sell at lower prices unless that lower price just happens to be the market price. i.e. in practical terms they are indistiguishable from the forever HPI perma prop bulls.

Why not set up a group of like minded people who all promise to sell their houses at the same price they purchased for (or whatever the correct price is deemed to be).

Maybe it's an idea whose time has come.

lisyloo

wotsthat wrote: »

So your heightened moral position is based on 'objecting' to things but doesn't extend to your behaviour.

Thanks for the Sunday sermon.

Many of us don't agree it's practice or possible to "opt out". I'll give you 2 examples from the very serious to the almost frivolous.

Let's suppose your options are to stay being bombed or starved in Syria or your other option is to risk your life and possibly drown or get trafficked into slavery or prostitution. You object to both those options but have no option but to take one or the other.
By taking one of those options does not mean you are condoning the actions other parties and up does not IMO mean you lose your right to object. If that was the case we'd all still be slaves.

Another frivolous example but probably more realistic for our first world issues. I have some friends coming for the weekend. We look up west end show prices and it's £100 for tickets at the weekend. I "object" to that price. My choices are either go and pay and suck it up or never go to west end show (assume we can only go on a weekend). I believe that I'm still allowed to believe the price is too high but also go. It simply isn't practical for people to opt out of everything they object to and I (and others) don't believe they lose their right to object.

If you (accidentally) purchase clothing made by kids in a sweat shop, does that make you morally responsible? No it doesn't and you can still object.

I would agree with lower prices across the board, but unilateral action would make no difference generally and harm me personally in my old age, so I personally wouldn't unilaterally lower my house price BUT I didn't contribute to the over population problem in fact I'm helping it by stopping my bloodline. Those who had more than 2 kids (excluding multiple births) are responsible for the over population of the country/planet.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

i.e. in practical terms they are indistiguishable from the forever HPI perma prop bulls.

Wrong, and you know it.

Huge difference is those willing to sell at a lower price are also willing to see price falls.

I don't know why you bother to do this.