MississippiJohnHurt

well put . There's plenty of countries who'd have a harder time than us if they had to grow 100% of their food. Some peope don't seem to understand the difference between having to import something cos it wouldn't grow here and importing because it makes economic sense .

It's very early days yet mate. Like crowing about your team winning at half time

Interesting view, why do you think that?

Hey BTL, you used to be good for a reasonable debate, what happened? Plenty on this site who have a genuine view and a good grasp of economics, and wouldn't recognise your assertions that the economy is recovering.

Really? I don't. I think there's a lot of pent up supply out there

That's the crappest graph ever. It's just rate of change. If you do think things will steadily recover, your basic position is that after prices went up by something like 150% since 2001, a 15-20% correction is all that will occur before prices start moving back towards peak. Good luck with that one.

It's not voluntary, and by definition capital requirements are a restraint

Denninger's best yet. +1,000,000

I dunno where you live but I'd wager that the 20k aint going to go far! I love "it's a good time to buy". It's one of those totally vacuous statements that has caught on.

interesting thread. Meredith Whitney has long seen credit card debts as the next shoe to drop in the US. Issues like these can have a very long lead time though. Everything I'm seeing lately just supports a Japan lost decade scenario.

From what I understand it this is about reserves deposited by banks with the central bank, nothing to do with individuals. Would be a brave bank indeed who passed it down the line to its depositors. Fixed rate savings have been trending up lately even with the interest rate very stable...

I think they do

by "gurus", do you mean "people on the internet with an opinion"?

Blimey, he's really bothered, some might even suggest panicked. He even uses the old "miss the boat forever" phrase! Still, I do miss Hamish a little. At least he was coherent when on here unlike some (although he does seem to be losing plot now).

It's the biggest financial committment people ever make, spread over 25 years, and they only think about whether they can afford the payments in the first month? Depressingly you're probably right. That doesn't mean it's a sensible calculation though, or that it would lead to a sustainable housing market. It just means there's loads of numpties who'd get repossessed very quickly if rates got to 7, 8, 9% (think they were this high in very recent memory, early 90s...) It just makes me think that people need to be saved from themselves. 25%+ deposit is one way a lender might attempt to do so cos at current prices, that's going to hard to achieve if you're say trying to trade from a flat bought in last 5 years to a house in same area. Notable that really low rates are only available on big deposit mortgages, the rate on 10% deposit loans tends to be 6%+ doesn't it?

I guess the Serious Guys were on holiday 2004 to mid 2008 then?

Why does he wish bad on people? Maybe he should work harder or get a better job, then he would be able to afford a house.

my thoughts too - what's that saying about the market always giving people one last opportunity to lose their shirts?

Once again you betray your prejudices. Do you know what hubris means?

Although I suspect you're just being a tiresome internet argument seeker (I think they call it a troll), this attitude really is indicative of some homeowners - if you don't own your own house, it must be because you're poor, or workshy, or both. Hopefully you're just looking to wind people up on the internet, that would be better than being a lazy minded myth swallower.

I could see the argument more clearly if you were looking at it from the other side , ie sustainability of wages. If you're arguing for a new paradigm of pricing I'd need to understand what caused that, cos the massive price rises since 2000 seem to have been caused by a massive credit bubble....

Heh, smash.

and a counter revolutionary point: don't accept it as desirable (or even sensible) that basic living costs in your country are so high that you can't afford to have a kid. Also, it's not like every pregnancy is planned is it?

On trend is a good one - assuming you mean the trend line. It's back to the trend line, as drawn just after the biggest property boom in history. Lol As for affordable, that's a really short term measure, used to measure risk against a very long term committment. Not the way to health and prosperity (except in an unprecedented asset boom, of course. Trouble is, we just had that). There's less bitterness and VI on here than you think mate, there are plenty of people who are pretty happy with their choices I would think. Some of us just despair about the way UK people think property is the path to free money, and can't see that it was all part of an unsustainable boom. Fun while it lasted perhaps, but not sensible.

they could, at this exact point in time. That's one of the problems. People only think about right now. Aside from the very real unemployment risks, what if she gets pregnant? Suddenly there's one income which would struggle to cover mortgage plus basic bills. Then she's forced to go back to work, and they have to pay something like £200pw childcare. They'd probably scrape through, but with very little ability to save for the big ticket items you invariably need when having a kid. Risking them taking on debt to buy such items, which chips away even more at liquid funds.... It's financial forecasting that would get an FD sacked in a heartbeat. (And all that is assuming no interest rate rises from here).