[pyracantha]

Nationalist, on 27 September 2011 - 02:19 PM, said:

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

Lots of opinion in the article but nothing of substance. Without analysis of the facts it just boils down to "my gang is better than your gang". I'd love to see how what's happening around the world (in governments and markets) be explained in any way that could be interpreted as being positive. None so blind as those who will not see.

[Little Professor]

Meh, just a troll. The article they published last week attacking HPC was one of their most read and commented, and no doubt brought in lots of ad revenue. Now they've tried the same thing with the Motley Fool, presumably expecting the Foolish hordes will also descend on their website and bring in lots of pageviews.

Fools Paradise: Inside 'the world’s greatest investment community'

This post has been edited by Little Professor: 27 September 2011 - 05:57 PM

[Saving For a Space Ship]

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

I am used to a semi these days.

How do you keep it up...

...your ever present wit, I mean



As M. Scott Peck says in the 'The Road Less Travelled' book, to be mentally healthy, people need to undergo 'legitimate suffering'.

Perhaps hpc'ers are only celebrating this return to mental health .

Is there a theory that the VI's spin to avoid debtors suffering from the downside of the bubble consequences ?

If the debtors do not suffer poverty and loss of status, they are more quickly sucked into the next bubble having learnt nothing from extended pain.

The Vi's therefore hope to skip the 'debt adversity' and capitulation part of the cycle, by demonising those who celebrate this phase .

This post has been edited by Saving For a Space Ship: 27 September 2011 - 06:11 PM

[okaycuckoo]

I do want a crash. I go to bed at night dreaming of it. The HPC of the early '90s was an opportunity. People like me don't care about affordable housing, we just want to make money.

Sorry ... channeling that fool who made the BBC news presenters jaws drop.

[Jason]

In a way, I think the second article is quite fair.
There is confirmation bias here, but where isn't there any?

I believed this site was proved right on the 2007-2009 crash (see my sig) so how we serious posters here can be called nutters I do not know... but the tables are turning to the whole economy, I believe the second phase is just starting (this time it will last for the best part of a decade).

[DeepLurker]

Little Professor, on 27 September 2011 - 05:56 PM, said:

Meh, just a troll. The article they published last week attacking HPC was one of their most read and commented, and no doubt brought in lots of ad revenue. Now they've tried the same thing with the Motley Fool, presumably expecting the Foolish hordes will also descend on their website and bring in lots of pageviews.

Fools Paradise: Inside 'the world’s greatest investment community'

Well spotted, that man!

[okaycuckoo]

okaycuckoo, on 27 September 2011 - 06:21 PM, said:

I do want a crash. I go to bed at night dreaming of it. The HPC of the early '90s was an opportunity. People like me don't care about affordable housing, we just want to make money.

Sorry ... channeling that fool who made the BBC news presenters jaws drop.

Beyond a joke:

http://www.telegraph...t-a-trader.html

Stop the sheepling!

[(Blizzard)]

There are two kinds of people, people who think high house prices are good, and people who understand basic economics.

Quote

Current high prices are good because:

• 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".

• 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.

• Negative equity, a phenomena associated with housing booms, is in fact caused by bank lending policies. It doesn't affect cars or televisions or other things people borrow to buy. These things are never worth the value of the loan secured against them.
  
  Clearly, there is no reason for banks not to allow people in negative equity to swap houses, but they don't. Certainly, this isn't an argument against falling house prices, any more than it is an argument against falling car prices.

• Computers get cheaper and better every single year, and yet people still buy computers. People buy homes to live in, they are consumables.

• I'd like to own slaves, should society oblige me? No.

Economically, in the real world of grown ups, falling house prices are an absolutely unambiguously good thing. Falling prices are the entire point of capitalism. The opposite, where prices can be raised to benefit special interest groups, is monopolism, which is illiegal for most assets (but not housing).

Why do people tolerate economic commentary from people who have never studied economics in their entire lives?

And why do such people feel able to write these things in the first place? Do they write about open heart surgery? Do they jump onto the pitch during FA cup games in order to help out the players?

This post has been edited by (Blizzard): 27 September 2011 - 10:55 PM

[billybong]

The article, in the comparison of the benefits of low house prices versus high house prices, didn't give space to the role of house prices within the general economy and the way that huge debt and high house prices have helped to make the UK and it's labour force uncompetitive both at home and abroad and helped in offshoring jobs etc. How the money directed into housing was in large part very much at the expense of pension funds. Decent pension funds would have meant less need for housing equity on retirement.

Malinvestment in housing has meant far less investment in UK industry and if that hadn't happened the UK would be several steps forward towards a decent traded sector that politicians are now going on about. That was understood in the 80s when house prices multiples were lower than now and that was well publicised at the time and the economy partly rebalanced towards the traded sector before doing the U turn towards housing again and now the UK is perhaps about to do another U turn - or so they say.

This post has been edited by billybong: 27 September 2011 - 11:47 PM

[GordonBrownSpentMyFuture]

From the article: What is all this talk of "cashing in"?

I don't hold any chips - I just want to be able to buy a house that isn't 5x my fake income.

[GordonBrownSpentMyFuture]

tr1ck5t3r, on 27 September 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

To join the dots. http://www.housepric...dpost&p=3125314

"Previously on House Price Crash..."

[GordonBrownSpentMyFuture]

billybong, on 27 September 2011 - 11:30 PM, said:

The article, in the comparison of the benefits of low house prices versus high house prices, didn't give space to the role of house prices within the general economy and the way that huge debt and high house prices have helped to make the UK and it's labour force uncompetitive both at home and abroad and helped in offshoring jobs etc. How the money directed into housing was in large part very much at the expense of pension funds. Decent pension funds would have meant less need for housing equity on retirement.

Malinvestment in housing has meant far less investment in UK industry and if that hadn't happened the UK would be several steps forward towards a decent traded sector that politicians are now going on about. That was understood in the 80s when house prices multiples were lower than now and that was well publicised at the time and the economy partly rebalanced towards the traded sector before doing the U turn towards housing again and now the UK is perhaps about to do another U turn - or so they say.

+1

[(Blizzard)]

billybong, on 27 September 2011 - 11:30 PM, said:

The article, in the comparison of the benefits of low house prices versus high house prices, didn't give space to the role of house prices within the general economy and the way that huge debt and high house prices have helped to make the UK and it's labour force uncompetitive both at home and abroad and helped in offshoring jobs etc. How the money directed into housing was in large part very much at the expense of pension funds. Decent pension funds would have meant less need for housing equity on retirement.

Malinvestment in housing has meant far less investment in UK industry and if that hadn't happened the UK would be several steps forward towards a decent traded sector that politicians are now going on about. That was understood in the 80s when house prices multiples were lower than now and that was well publicised at the time and the economy partly rebalanced towards the traded sector before doing the U turn towards housing again and now the UK is perhaps about to do another U turn - or so they say.

A reduction in the mobility and flexibility of your labour force, as people become more and more priced out of areas with good jobs. A reduction in the real value of talent, work or education, none of which can compete with the money collected by owning land.

All made worse by the fact that raised housing costs are mostly paid by young people starting new lives, new jobs and new businesses, and paid to older people just as they are becoming economically inactive.

Each of these economic problems has the same social effect. They lead to a decrease in social mobility, and an increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots.

You start out with a low-cost, flexible, hard-working labour market and an economy where anyone can make a good living if they are prepared to work.

Then you push-up the costs, remove all the flexibility, and eliminate the real value of work. Then you take away all the capital and give it to people who have retired.

What do you think happens to the economy?

High house prices poison everything.

[erranta]

plummet expert, on 27 September 2011 - 03:01 PM, said:

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.

The vast majority of Westminster had secretly turned into multi-property owning Vi's and were/are ALL rotten to the core, flipping houses and committing fraud against taxpayer on expenses

You don't expect them to vote against their cash-cows or cause themselves any house related inconvenience do you?

Look @ Blair and his properties - he knew the corruption & future fixing (on the cards) going inside Westminster re property 'investing'