Europa

E pur si muove

And I remember one or two little bears saying the market had peaked in 2004

I suspect you're wasting your time. Tara will remain smug until the moment her P45 arrives

With respect, my reply was directed at LION. And the "Greater Germany" comment was an Anschluss reference

As a passionate Europhile, I believe the flow of people across our continent's borders is a wonderful thing. Your post, however, awakened my inner xenophobe. If the standard of living is so poor in "this rainy country", you must feel free to f*** off back to Greater Germany. :angry:

Erm, quite. My place may indeed have shed nearly 50 per cent of its value while I sat here at my desk. The market is indeed that volatile. I'll check rightmove before I leave tonight - if other flats in the street have dropped into the five-figure zone I may be tempted to snap a few up. Seriously Popalot, I'm guessing you're not in London

London will fall hard? Your faith appears unshakeable. London remains susceptible to economic shocks. At the moment, however, there is nothing significant on the horizon. Again, I notice that you have been a loyal HPC member since 2004. How much have house prices increased by in your area since then? How much could you have made by buying and selling a property during that period. And more importantly, what sort of nominal fall do you need to see to take you back to the level last seen when you first thought prices would crash? That's right, looking rather unlikely, isn't it?

Your mastery of double-think is admirable. The land registry figures continue to show strong growth across London (with the exception of Dagenham, I seem to remember). My decision to buy last year means I now have an additional 50k in equity (meaning I would have to find an extra 50k if I wanted to buy the same place today). Tell me again why last year was the "peak", keeping in mind that house prices are now significantly higher?

And very pleasant it is too

Because I feel vindicated. Any comments I made suggesting that the London market remains strong were met with ridicule from the more extreme bears.

London up 4.9 per cent on the quarter "reflecting the strength of the capital's economy". Excellent news. Anyone still think the capital is crashing?

£35 an hour? That equates to, what, 67K per annum? They haven't exactly driven you into the gutter, have they? That aside, I take your point. I don't doubt that there has been an impact on some sectors. However the idea that factory workers were fired on mass and replaced by two pounds per hour immigrants is, I suspect, bunk.

Come off it, Wicky You vaguely remember that some bloke may have said something on an internet forum? And you "don't need evidence"? I think we can safely assume that this is another right-wing myth.

Really? You have evidence that jobs previously paying ten pounds an hour have been bumped back to minimum wage? Care to provide some evidence, or shall we add this to the HPC myths?

Orbit actually makes some reasonable points. But obviously you couldn't pass up the opportunity for a cheap jibe. That aside, those at the bottom of the pile do not have a particulalry strong case for getting their snouts in the trough first. As Orbital said, they are highly unlikely to be significant contributors to society. Why should the fact that their parents were born here make one bit of difference. That those who contribute nothing expect to have some sort of say in the running of this country disgusts me. And as Andy pointed out, the ease with which recent arrivals have found work (and with which previous waves of immigrants have prospered) should raise some serious questions. Why on earth does the number of slackers remain in seven figures in a country with virtually full employment? Surely there is an argument for looking towards the US benefits model.

Could you squeeze any more cliches into that post?

With one post you managed to remove your last shred of credibility. What you seem to be saying is that anyone who provides an alternative view of the market has an obvious vested interest and a sinister agenda. Realistbear, of course, is beyond criticism. You really do see him as some sort of profit

With one post you managed to remove your last shred of credibility. What you seem to be saying is that anyone who provides an alternative view of the market has an obvious vested interest and a sinister agenda. Realistbear, of course, is beyond criticism. You really do see him as some sort of profit

Wouldn't you prefer something with a bit of power behind it?

Good point. The retirement age of 65 was (I believe) initially introduced for civil servants by Bismark. It was the age at which the majority of them were expected to die.

I have made it clear time and time again that STRing in 2004 was a mistake. Perhaps I could add this to my signature? Not so. I get the impression that (aside from the lunatic fringes in both the bull and bear camps) views are converging. Possibly. But on your last point, I concur.

Erm, yes. That's the point I have consistently made. My point (in this particular post) was that we can hardly blame an educated, professional couple for at least aspiring to the life style of their parents. (What's wrong with this thread? I seem to have slipped across to the bear camp, while the bears themselves seem rather bullish )

Really? Didn't know that. Walked by his place in Richmond recently (a pal pointed it out) Does indeed seem rather nice.

Fair point, actually. There is every chance that I wouldn't have had the opportunity to do something like this. So my fore-fathers would have been downstairs in the basement - just like me

Hope you don't mind, but I'd rather not say. Like most posters here I'd rather like to keep my anonymity.