[Nationalist]

It's here.

Quote

Last week Mindful Money published an opinion piece critical of the online community House Price Crash. The response was immediate and vehement. We looked at the comments to make sense of the debate. Here’s what happened:

House Price Crash, a site which, in case you were unfamiliar, aims to:

"Act as a counterbalance to the huge amounts of positive spin the housing market receives in the mainstream media and provide anyone involved in the market with up to date data and commentary.

The response to "Inside the House Price Crash community " was almost immediate, with early commenters channeling their inner Malcolm Tucker at the one sided portrayal of ‘the mighty HPC' as one reader put it.

This was a typical comment:

"The writer of this poor excuse for journalism clearly misses the point. Deliberately so. HPCers don't want to "cash in" on bargains... they want affordable housing - one of the basic needs of human beings - for all." Chuffy

Fair enough.

And while affordable housing was a recurring theme that ran through many of the comments, exception was taken to the critical stance of the schadenfreude that characterizes a large part of the HPC forum.

Here are a few observations from the offending article:

"Basically contributors appear to be frustrated would-be first-time buyers who resent renting and are hoping prices will "crash" so they can cash in."

"There's obvious delight in any loss of homeowners' equity"

...probably not worth making any comments on the article. All that can be said was said last week.

[inflating]

Least said, soonest mended

[right_freds_dead]

im not sure any of us want to 'cash in' as its teh 'cashing in' thats denied cost of us a fair chance to live in the uk as normal people and not nimby slaves. the cashing in went in 06. all we are trying to do is prevent more stealing. by the time the public get the message, it will be all over anyway, so whats the point. the damage is done. the dream is gone.

and i for one, have become uncomfortably numb.

[TheCountOfNowhere]

right_freds_dead, on 27 September 2011 - 02:41 PM, said:

im not sure any of us want to 'cash in' as its teh 'cashing in' thats denied cost of us a fair chance to live in the uk as normal people and not nimby slaves. the cashing in went in 06. all we are trying to do is prevent more stealing. by the time the public get the message, it will be all over anyway, so whats the point. the damage is done. the dream is gone.

and i for one, have become uncomfortably numb.

+1. Well said.

We want a fair chance at living in the UK. I dont want to be a bank slave. I want the government to run the country for the majority, to treat the real tax payers as precious commodities, to stop meddling in markets, to allow freedom and most of all....to regulate EAs 2nd hand house salesmen and limit their ridiculous fees to 0.1% of the asking price.

This post has been edited by TheCountOfNowhere: 27 September 2011 - 02:50 PM

[andybee33]

right_freds_dead, on 27 September 2011 - 02:41 PM, said:

im not sure any of us want to 'cash in' as its teh 'cashing in' thats denied cost of us a fair chance to live in the uk as normal people and not nimby slaves. the cashing in went in 06. all we are trying to do is prevent more stealing. by the time the public get the message, it will be all over anyway, so whats the point. the damage is done. the dream is gone.

and i for one, have become uncomfortably numb.

Well said.

I was surprised to see one of my posts being quoted in the article. I have to admit that, taken out of the HPC context, it did look a little harsh - bit I would still stand by it.

The argument made about homeowners holding onto their equity was specious. The real issue here is the debt-fuelled pyramid and the original article fails completely to address that.

This post has been edited by andybee33: 27 September 2011 - 02:54 PM

[plummet expert]

right_freds_dead, on 27 September 2011 - 02:41 PM, said:

im not sure any of us want to 'cash in' as its teh 'cashing in' thats denied cost of us a fair chance to live in the uk as normal people and not nimby slaves. the cashing in went in 06. all we are trying to do is prevent more stealing. by the time the public get the message, it will be all over anyway, so whats the point. the damage is done. the dream is gone.

and i for one, have become uncomfortably numb.

No, it's nonsense put about by people who don't know. I currently rent - sold in 2006, but still own other property. I do not belive the equity that arrived since 1994 is signs of a market working properly atall. It has produced distortions in the economy, shut out 1st time buyers, given too much equity to old folk who never dreamed it would be there anyway. Come on....where is the perspective.
People pay stupid rents, the govt stupid amounts of HB. (Holier than thou speech coming) For one thing, none of it would have happened had I been in charge of policy the last 15 years. There would have been no fall in rates to 3.75% in 2004 when plainly property was ramping up. There would have been no loans over 2.5 x incomes allowed either. We would be living with homes about 40% less than the current price and first timers - people who bother to save up a deposit, would have been still buying. There would have been a Euro crisis but not a housing price crisis. Also banks would never have been deregulated by me in the way they have over 20 yrs and they would not be on the hook for massive residential property loans.
Politicians need to do Economic history before stepping up as chancellor or PM.

[cheeznbreed]

andybee33, on 27 September 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

Well said.

I was surprised to see one of my posts being quoted in the article. I have to admit that, taken out of the HPC context, it did look a little harsh - bit I would still stand by it.

The argument made about homeowners holding onto their equity was specious. The real issue here is the debt-fuelled pyramid and the original article fails completely to address that.

Yes, in the three 'plus' points for prices 'not falling' as described in the latest article, they cite the need for some to fund retirements:

Quote

Many wish to use the equity in their homes or buy-to-lets as a replacement for otherwise poor retirement pension prospects so they need high values.

The author has singularly failed to grasp who ultimately pays for this retirement, and why it is neither desirable or sustainable.

The author might go further to examine what happens to new entrants in a stable pricing regime. Are a person's retirement plans aided by paying more interest over the life of the mortgage? Seems to me that in a stable pricing regime, the lower the cost the better for every new entrant, as it allows less to be spent securing the home and thus frees up more income to fund retirement plans rather than being given to a bank in interest. The equity withdrawal aspect of funding retirement is only sustainable with constant HPI, and constant HPI is an impossibility of Ponzi dreams. End of.

EDIT to add, the other two points about high prices being 'good' are pretty poor VI nonsense to boot:

Quote

They help avoid negative equity (where loans are higher than the property's value). This can prevent people moving for a new job or to accommodate a larger family as well as preventing losses to lenders.

They provide economic and social stability - plunging house prices prevent people moving and can lead, as in the United States, to areas where no one buys because they are waiting for "a cheaper tomorrow".

No negative equity but try and get an extra bedroom and it'll cost you £100k, great. I feel a lot better off. Interesting that the author argues for a Ponzi scheme twice in the three points made- lenders losses cannot be prevented by ever-rising prices, in fact it makes catastrophic losses much more likely, as amply demonstrated lately.

The second point is just rubbish- is the author seriously arguing that higher house moving costs make it easier to move?

The author is like a child being dragged to the dentist- in the child's mind there are overriding reasons for avoiding the chair at that moment in time, irrespective of how much good it will do in the long run.

This post has been edited by cheeznbreed: 27 September 2011 - 03:27 PM

[bobthe~]

Interesting to counterpoint the 2 "last words" in the article.

someone who doesn't post here, but used the forum as a resource to get better knowledge of the impending world financial crisis, vs a bitter, whining troll who is complaining that he can't troll any more because he has been banned.

I am not an uber bear and would like to see if that declaration gets me banned.

[Lepista]

Imagine the scene a month or so ago at Gadhaffi's palace. G is there, with some of his close friends, sitting having lunch.

Gadaffi: "You'll never believe what I witnessed earlier today"

Friend: "No, what?"

G: "Well, I was logged into this forum that was started by some libyans in Tikrit. They were having a good laugh that some of my police were having a hard time, with a bit of an uprising. The Policeman, who had worked hard to progress up through the ranks, had apparently been driven out of his home of 10 years. A nice house too - fully kitted out with all the latest mod cons. His family too - just out on the street, just like that, banished from his home town. The worst bit about it though - this forum didn't have any sympathy for the policeman in question. They were happy that this had happened. To this poor policeman, who had maintained order in their own town for years.

F: Hadn't the policeman been involved in mass oppression of the foruim group for years though?"

G: "Yes, but that's not the point - these people were positively revelling in his plight".

F: "How awful. That forum seems like a complete bunch of hard nosed meanies. They deserve nothing but the worst".

[Lepista]

bobthe~, on 27 September 2011 - 03:40 PM, said:

Interesting to counterpoint the 2 "last words" in the article.

someone who doesn't post here, but used the forum as a resource to get better knowledge of the impending world financial crisis, vs a bitter, whining troll who is complaining that he can't troll any more because he has been banned.

I am not an uber bear and would like to see if that declaration gets me banned.

FUBRA might like to take issuance with that statement that all bulls get banned - I'm pretty sure that most people aren't banned - they just crawl away never to be seen again when their arguments are torn to shreds.

It would be good to see an actual list of people who have been banned, and for what reason they were banned. I suspect it is a very small list.

[Parkwell]

Nicely put Lepista

[Chuffy Chuffnell]

Good to see my comment was picked out above the rest!

[Bloo Loo]

I am used to a semi these days.

[Nationalist]

Bloo Loo, on 27 September 2011 - 04:14 PM, said:

I am used to a semi these days.

I knew someone was going to say that. I just didn't know who it would be.

[Milton]

Quote

"The Social Business Group is the publisher of Mindful Money; a Social News and Knowledge Network for the investment community, created in conjunction with HSBC, Henderson and Schroders."

A quick google search suggests that Henderson and Schroders have billions invested in European property......

This post has been edited by Milton: 27 September 2011 - 04:59 PM