Do You Think The Hpc Website Will Ever Be A Forum That Would Accept A Balanced Argument?

[will77t]

No you wouldn't. This site did not exist in 2002. October 2003 iirc. The FSA had warned that housing was in bubble territory in March 2001...where this site was mistaken was in underestimating just how far from equilibrium the governments and central banks would let this bubble get. Who would have thought that in 2004 the Americans would have lowered capital ratios as low as they did? Most posters on here in 2005 thought that a crash was imminent...in fact the housing market was beginning to wobble, but the BOE lowered interest rates in August 2005 and "confidence" returned to the market. It was at that point I realised that this thing was going to go until nothing would support it.

So, the timing may have been out, but the insight as to the structural problems that were brewing were spot on. The bubble could have gone pop anytime from 2002 onwards...what has astounded me is the reckless manner in which it had been kept inflated over the next 6 years. I, personally, was just not cynical enough.

This serves to prove my point. In 2003 HPC's logic (however brilliant) would dictate that house prices should come down, but they didn't. Same goes for 2004, 2005, 2006 and most of 2007. Graphs, charts, statistics, examination of the evidence and with your fists pounding on the table they went onto rise. Government decisions that seemed baffling to you and events that seemed incomprehensible all caused prices to go in a different direction than you were expecting. Things do indeed look bad but I'll continue to say (however vexing it is to the senior members) that you can't predict the future with any accuracy - HPC's legacy is proof of that ( wrong 5 years out of seven despite some fabulous insights as to why it shouldn't be the case).

[three pint princess]

This serves to prove my point. In 2003 HPC's logic (however brilliant) would dictate that house prices should come down, but they didn't. Same goes for 2004, 2005, 2006 and most of 2007. Graphs, charts, statistics, examination of the evidence and with your fists pounding on the table they went onto rise. Government decisions that seemed baffling to you and events that seemed incomprehensible all caused prices to go in a different direction than you were expecting. Things do indeed look bad but I'll continue to say (however vexing it is to the senior members) that you can't predict the future with any accuracy - HPC's legacy is proof of that ( wrong 5 years out of seven despite some fabulous insights as to why it shouldn't be the case).

I agree, they must have been fustrated when house prices didn't fall in 2003 which just goes to show HPC logic was wrong.

[Kootenai Brown]

This serves to prove my point. In 2003 HPC's logic (however brilliant) would dictate that house prices should come down, but they didn't. Same goes for 2004, 2005, 2006 and most of 2007. Graphs, charts, statistics, examination of the evidence and with your fists pounding on the table they went onto rise. Government decisions that seemed baffling to you and events that seemed incomprehensible all caused prices to go in a different direction than you were expecting. Things do indeed look bad but I'll continue to say (however vexing it is to the senior members) that you can't predict the future with any accuracy - HPC's legacy is proof of that ( wrong 5 years out of seven despite some fabulous insights as to why it shouldn't be the case).

The post above has shown me that you have no idea what was being discussed on these forums for all those years. Your generalisations about this site and it's supposed bias are pretty much worthless.

[will77t]

The post above has shown me that you have no idea what was being discussed on these forums for all those years. Your generalisations about this site and it's supposed bias are pretty much worthless.

All of those years - It looks like you joined at the end on 2006?

[Alfie Moon]

The problem that will77t and haventaclue make is a classic schoolboy error when it comes to analysis, logic and argument. Their idea of a bal;anced argument, going by their contributions to HPC, is about an argument that is 50% one way and 50% the other. This is fine for debate at a fairly early stage of schooling but should be developed to a more sophisticated level later on. The 'balance' of balanced argument is determined by the available evidence. If the evidence is overwhelmingly indicating that such and such is, and will continue, to happen then the argument needs to reflect this. If there are bits of evidence that contradict or don't fit the other evidence and argument then, for the sake of balance this should be acknowledged and the evidence scrutinised for its implications and meaning. As the 'balance' of evidence changes then the analysis and argument should reflect this. It would be false and unbalanced to say that for the sake of balance the argument should put forward one argument, as suggested by the evidence, but then - whatever the balance of the evidence - give 50% of the space over to the 'counter-argument'.

Accurate analysis will reflect the balance of evidence - not some clumsy 50% argument for and 50% against.

HPC generates detailed analysis of the available evidence - indeed where elese will you find such detailed analysis of the wide range of data related to the UK property market? Compared to published papers, on HPC each argument and piece of analysis is challenged and pulled apart in terms of strengths and weaknesses in real time whereas published peer reviewed papers argument takes years to progress.

will77t - to give yourself some credence you will need to provide the counterargument and supporting evidence and then, through this, demonstrate that the overall HPC analysis and argument is unbalanced in terms of the overall evidence available in regard to the UK property market. If you don't you are making empty claims - unsubstantiated claims which is a very basic error in terms of argument construction, particularly balanced argument.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Alfie Moon

[Smith]

I'm with the OP on this one; this site is as good a demonstration of confirmation bias as you could hope to invent!

That's not to say I don't agree with most of what's being said. I have done since I first discovered the site back in the day before I STR in 2004 (which I was planning to do anyway, incidentally).

But if you seriously believe that this site gives a balanced view of things from which one can draw one's own conclusions then you are deluded and should perhaps read other sites and views.

Smith

[Kootenai Brown]

All of those years - It looks like you joined at the end on 2006?

And browsed before hand. For you to try to discredit the many contributions, discussions and predictions from so many contributors to this site is wrong. Try looking in the classics forum. FYI the discussion on this site pre crash largely revolved around economics, risk, investments and a portion of ********. There was a blanced argument with some epic discussions between bulls and bears.

Basically, if what you say is true, this site would not have thousands of posts on thousands of topics. It would look something like this...

"House prices are going to crash"

"+1"

"Yes"

"I agree"

"Yup"

"Yipee!"

"Right"

"+1"

"Yes"

"I agree"

"Yup"

"Yipee!"

"Right"

"+1"

"Yes"

"I agree"

"Yup"

"Yipee!"

"Right"

"+1"

"Yes"

"I agree"

"Yup"

"Yipee!"

"Right"

"+1"

"Yes"

"I agree"

"Yup"

"Yipee!"

"Right"

"+1"

"Yes"

"I agree"

"Yup"

"Yipee!"

"Right"

[Smith]

Accurate analysis will reflect the balance of evidence - not some clumsy 50% argument for and 50% against.

Absolutely agree. Listen to Radio One Newsbeat if you want an example of why always having half on one side and half on the other isn't actually very revealing!

That said, I suspect that if you lined up all the evidence and worked out how much of it suggested HPC and how much didn't you'd find the former over-represented on this site. It's what you'd expect, surely. But you need to be aware of it.

The other facet of confirmation bias which is so prevalent here is the aggressive or patronising stance taken against those that dare to question. Calling people trolls, schoolboys and so on.

Smith

[rw42]

This serves to prove my point. In 2003 HPC's logic (however brilliant) would dictate that house prices should come down, but they didn't. Same goes for 2004, 2005, 2006 and most of 2007. Graphs, charts, statistics, examination of the evidence and with your fists pounding on the table they went onto rise. Government decisions that seemed baffling to you and events that seemed incomprehensible all caused prices to go in a different direction than you were expecting. Things do indeed look bad but I'll continue to say (however vexing it is to the senior members) that you can't predict the future with any accuracy - HPC's legacy is proof of that ( wrong 5 years out of seven despite some fabulous insights as to why it shouldn't be the case).

I wouldn't say the governments decisions were incomprehensible, just wrong.

Think how many bust banks might have been saved if a correction had happened in 2005 instead of a full blown HPC now.

I would say that HPC back then (from what i've read) was more about deciding that something was wrong and would have to break sooner or later, not trying to predict the exact date of the crash.

I still don't think you have a point at all. There is no groupthink HPC logic that dictated house prices must drop by 42%, just a bunch of people convinced that the boom in house prices wasn't sustainable, and discussing the effects of both the boom and what they considered to be the inevitable bust.

[will77t]

The problem that will77t and haventaclue make is a classic schoolboy error when it comes to analysis, logic and argument. Their idea of a bal;anced argument, going by their contributions to HPC, is about an argument that is 50% one way and 50% the other. This is fine for debate at a fairly early stage of schooling but should be developed to a more sophisticated level later on. The 'balance' of balanced argument is determined by the available evidence. If the evidence is overwhelmingly indicating that such and such is, and will continue, to happen then the argument needs to reflect this. If there are bits of evidence that contradict or don't fit the other evidence and argument then, for the sake of balance this should be acknowledged and the evidence scrutinised for its implications and meaning. As the 'balance' of evidence changes then the analysis and argument should reflect this. It would be false and unbalanced to say that for the sake of balance the argument should put forward one argument, as suggested by the evidence, but then - whatever the balance of the evidence - give 50% of the space over to the 'counter-argument'.

Accurate analysis will reflect the balance of evidence - not some clumsy 50% argument for and 50% against.

HPC generates detailed analysis of the available evidence - indeed where elese will you find such detailed analysis of the wide range of data related to the UK property market? Compared to published papers, on HPC each argument and piece of analysis is challenged and pulled apart in terms of strengths and weaknesses in real time whereas published peer reviewed papers argument takes years to progress.

will77t - to give yourself some credence you will need to provide the counterargument and supporting evidence and then, through this, demonstrate that the overall HPC analysis and argument is unbalanced in terms of the overall evidence available in regard to the UK property market. If you don't you are making empty claims - unsubstantiated claims which is a very basic error in terms of argument construction, particularly balanced argument.

I think you're largely right; perhaps I should have done away with the bit about accepting a balanced argument in the title and just concentrated on the confirmation bias. It’s true, the overwhelming evidence suggests further falls, but many members on here believe that possibility to be fact. At the moment it's just guess work: Very well researched guess work, but guess work nonetheless.

In terms of providing counterargument in this respect, well, it's pretty hard! I've agreed with a few possibilities on this thread, but the crux of my argument is that it is the unexpected, the unknown and the decisions by those in power that could cause house prices to go the other way. These are by very nature unexpected and unknown and not necessarily rational. These were the very reasons why, despite a convincing argument to the contrary, house prices continued to rise well above where many on here were predicting.

[Tiger Woods?]

This serves to prove my point. In 2003 HPC's logic (however brilliant) would dictate that house prices should come down, but they didn't. Same goes for 2004, 2005, 2006 and most of 2007. Graphs, charts, statistics, examination of the evidence and with your fists pounding on the table they went onto rise. Government decisions that seemed baffling to you and events that seemed incomprehensible all caused prices to go in a different direction than you were expecting. Things do indeed look bad but I'll continue to say (however vexing it is to the senior members) that you can't predict the future with any accuracy - HPC's legacy is proof of that ( wrong 5 years out of seven despite some fabulous insights as to why it shouldn't be the case).

You miss the point. The bubble was going to pop for the reasons outlined. One cannot forsee all the twists and turns, and historically this one has been driven to greater heights than the norm, but the fundamental problem did not go away. Yes, some people made money between 2003 and 2007. However, we are far from the end of this and many will find themselves in negative equity, and paying more in interest than the equivalent rent. It is one of the things that has always been said here - it is difficult to tell when a bubble is going to pop, and it is often the case that those perceptive individuals who see the underlying problems get out too early - the logical mistake being that markets are driven by the majority, not the perspicacity of a few. Doesn't change the fact that they were correct about the fundamental economic problem, nor does it change the fact that they are correct about what is coming.

Government decisions aren't baffling so much as deeply saddening. The last 8 years has seen some terribly irresponsible governing of the financial system.

I know many people who bought houses in 2005, 2006, 2007 (rather than those lucky enough to buy pre 2001). Their future prospects and financial well being are likely to be seriously damaged.

[abharrisson]

Will anyone here admit that their opinion is being swayed perhaps a little too far by a barrage of selective evidence?

I've posted a few times on different threads about this but it'd be good to see a proper debate (I've said my bit of other threads).

Try and keep it balanced though. Try and think of another perspective... it'll help!

Of course while many may say its too soon... the future is a site called "house price boom" , in the same way that this site was massively premature in its predicitions , so a new site called house price boom who would be equally right now as this was then...... prices are falling but they will rise, the further they fall, the faster they will rise (once they take off) and the bigger the gains for those who invest near the bottom.

For those with a different motivation... you could see this current crash as sowing the seeds for a future boom that may yet prove bigger and more long lasting than the previous one.... regular price insreases will come again... eventually.

[Guest X-QUORK]

Still no counterarguments from the "confirmation bias" crowd.

Oh won't someone think of the balance?

[Venger]

These are by very nature unexpected and unknown and not necessarily rational. These were the very reasons why, despite a convincing argument to the contrary, house prices continued to rise well above where many on here were predicting.

True enough, prices went up beyond belief of many to total extremes. That is one characteristic of a major bubble. The oceans of credit the lenders and borrowers used so house prices could reach those extreme levels have all but dried up.

The manic phase of the boom lasts for several years. Properties come to sell at absurd prices on the expectation that they will appreciate to still more absurd prices. And they do. They defy gravity, moving from one lofty high to another, month after month, year after year, long enough to lure otherwise prudent people in to mortgaging their gains to reinvest in the inflated assets on margin. Before the market can top, near enough everyone who could conceivably be drawn in must have already become a buyer. Then comes the bust. Just as everyone has come to count on the idea that lofty asset values are permanent, there is a crash.

One thing you should learn that demand for housing (that is real demand - not aspirational demand) is a DIRECT function of available credit. Nothing more. This is what effects house prices, and nothing else.

[Lepista]

Of course while many may say its too soon... the future is a site called "house price boom" ,

Actually, I don't think there will ever be a need for this.

HPC arose as the balance for all the VI spin that was being spouted EVERYWHERE.

Even in the depths of depression, the regular MSM, the government, the papers,... will all be picking up on "green shoots of recovery", and spinning any little nugget up out of any proportion, and won't look at the root causes of the property (and economic) cycles.

This website is the only place I know that does provide balance in this mad, mad world.

[huw]

Not at all. I just don't accept that this forum presents a balanced argument. Anyone who suggests for a second that the whole world won't end and the price of a house won't cost less than a bag of chips is hounded.

The place is full of straw-man arguments, too

[three pint princess]

The place is full of straw-man arguments, too

If my view is moderate, I must therefore be correct.

[dancer7]

To be fair I don't log on to this forum to read "balanced arguments". I simply want facts preferably backed up by a link. It is well known that internet forums attract a lot of nonsense and I just don't have the time to take it all on board.

[Guest anorthosite]

I'd agree that a balanced argument on this forum is a rarity. It used to be a place for stimulating debate, but when it went mainstream it attracted a few nut cases who shout louder than anyone else and tend to kill honest debate.

[drrayjo]

This website is the only place I know that does provide balance in this mad, mad world.

Amen, though it's not the ONLY place (BigPicture, DailyReckoning, Mish Shedlock, MessThatGreenpanMade etc.).

[Nomadd]

...but the crux of my argument is that it is the unexpected, the unknown and the decisions by those in power that could cause house prices to go the other way. These are by very nature unexpected and unknown and not necessarily rational.

Nope, the "taps" of finance have well and truly been turned off. That was the only thing that allowed such leveraging to take place. I don't for one moment see the government offering heavily subsidised mortgages to FTBs "en mass" to alleviate this situation. Hence house prices will continue to fall.

What the - future - government could do is massively ramp up new housebuilding. That will also put a downward pressure on prices.

These were the very reasons why, despite a convincing argument to the contrary, house prices continued to rise well above where many on here were predicting.

Nope, cheap finance and greed - and the belief the bubble would go on forever - were the drivers. And we on HPC knew that was an illusion. This has now proved to be the case.

Nomadd

[Bruce Banner]

Actually, I don't think there will ever be a need for this.

HPC arose as the balance for all the VI spin that was being spouted EVERYWHERE.

Even in the depths of depression, the regular MSM, the government, the papers,... will all be picking up on "green shoots of recovery", and spinning any little nugget up out of any proportion, and won't look at the root causes of the property (and economic) cycles.

This website is the only place I know that does provide balance in this mad, mad world.

Very true, but those with a vested interest in rising house prices perceive the site as a threat to their attempts to talk up the market, hence the continuous trolling and the existence of threads such as this.

See below.

[will77t]

Nope, the "taps" of finance have well and truly been turned off. That was the only thing that allowed such leveraging to take place. I don't for one moment see the government offering heavily subsidised mortgages to FTBs "en mass" to alleviate this situation. Hence house prices will continue to fall.

What the - future - government could do is massively ramp up new housebuilding. That will also put a downward pressure on prices.

Nope, cheap finance and greed - and the belief the bubble would go on forever - were the drivers. And we on HPC knew that was an illusion. This has now proved to be the case.

Nomadd

So what you're saying is that it wouldn't be rational, expected or plausible for the taps to be turned back on? I'd agree but I wouldn't say that it couldn't happen. My point is that in 2003 some of the founders believed that house prices couldn't keep on rising, they were right, but for the first five years they weren't.

[will77t]

Very true, but those with a vested interest in rising house prices perceive the site as a threat to their attempts to talk up the market, hence the continuous trolling and the existence of threads such as this.

See below.

Well my word. Do you do anything lately but complain and tell everyone they're VI, trolls or estate agents paid to ramp house prices? If the first page of your contributions are anything to go by (which date back to Apr 16 2009, 10:03 AM) then the answer is a firm 'No'. Do you have a VI to protect?

Edited April 29, 2009 by will77t

[rw42]

Well my word. Do you do anything lately but complain and tell everyone they're VI, trolls or estate agents paid to ramp house prices? If the first page of your contributions are anything to go by (which date back to Apr 16 2009, 10:03 AM) then the answer is a firm 'No'. Do you have a VI to protect?

Do you do anything lately but accuse people of bias?