Serious Topics Political and Economic Discussion Forums.. Javascript must be enabled to use this site.
Password ReminderLoginRegister  
Topics
Register
Login
Archives

UK House Prices

As the UK economy slumps towards 2010, what are the prospects for the housing market over the coming years?

Note that various articles on the housing markets of the UK, USA and Australia are recorded at House Price Crash Discussion Forums
Please register or login to post.
View Topic
Search text   Date  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  

PosterMessage
mike larger
 03 Sep '10  15:56 : 0 recs

 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
Hardeau
 03 Sep '10  15:47 : 0 recs

At least, we can count on True Love
I assume this is an expression of a general principle, rather than a personal message
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
mike larger
 03 Sep '10  15:17 : 0 recs

Let's hope so - we cock up most other things.
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
zorro
 03 Sep '10  10:18 : 0 recs

Mike

False House prices, led to (feelings of) False Wealth, led to False Growth led to False Jobs, thus False Lending - ever thus ever higher False House Prices etc.

At least, we can count on True Love.
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
mike larger
 03 Sep '10  09:50 : 0 recs

Goel - I thought that Singapore argument etc had been done in 2004 - some chance!

The logic of a house price crash was undeniable except:

a) for those in denial, and

b) for Politicians who seem to think that preventing young people from buying property without draining their entire future income for 30-100 years to come (when no amount of income is certain anymore - due to the house price bubble and its effects) is a good iodea.

False House prices, led to (feelings of) False Wealth, led to False Growth led to False Jobs, thus False Lending - ever thus ever higher False House Prices etc.

Take away step 1 and the rest would not have happened.

Maintain the ridiculous lie and, as with any lie, the future just gets worse - daily!
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
zorro
 02 Sep '10  23:30 : 0 recs

Goel

Well, I don't know. I just have this feeling that gold might go down, for a number of reasons. But I am not the only one. I have just come across this:

Chinese central bank analyst thinks that Western central banks will start dumping gold to knock the price down.

I suppose they had to be talking about something in Jackson Hole? Dumping gold is one way of defending paper money.
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
Slightly Optimistic
 02 Sep '10  19:29 : 0 recs

So Ron Paul also doubts that public assets have been properly stewarded, Zorro. The last audit was in the 1950's.

Rather makes a nonsense of the US yesterday adopting EU Statutory Audit Directive 2006/43/EC .
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
Hoog
 02 Sep '10  17:42 : 0 recs

The Great Gonzo Goel,

Your posts do not typically exhibit reason, logic, or sanity.

Screaming continual insults such as "YAA BOO TO THE GREAT SATAN" et al exhibits immaturity, a lack of perspective and an illogical, scrambled thought process.

Perhaps your post is simply one long excuse for getting virtually everything bang wrong.

So be it.

Rgds,
*Hoog*
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
Goel
 02 Sep '10  16:21 : 0 recs

As an unrelated matter, I think gold is soon heading for quite a nice little slide.

I hope you're right, zorro - but you're probably wrong.

The thing is, we keep measuring and evaluating things according to reason, logic, sanity, etc, but the system is about something else entirely.

That - for me - has been the primary lesson (or reinforcement) of the whole house price saga.

I now appreciate that to make sense of it all you have to get inside a madman's head - easier said than done.

Meanwhile, I note Ming appears to be demolishing Saines over Singaporean GDP for the umpteenth time.

Does that mean the forum gets another break while he takes some time off to lick his wounds?

G.
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
Motty
 02 Sep '10  14:20 : 0 recs

I must add, those banks raising rates in the US, are mainly those like for Military, defense, retired, community, city, and those 2nd - 3rd ranking banks.
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
Motty
 02 Sep '10  11:56 : 0 recs

Similar things happening in the US, too. CDs and other banks offer better rates. Hope this would remedy high yen situation where offers virtually .o% for keeping money at bank accounts.

But this also suggests a troublesome situation for some banks. For one, banks are required ever to keep good money standing on its B/S, Basel etc thing, minimum money to set aside and maintaining the quality. Bidding up higher rates suggests that banks are seeking to collect stashed money under beds of savers. Interestingly only short-term accounts are set to offer higher rates than longer ones. Same everywhere in the world.

How far better/ worse can it be?
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
Jungle
 02 Sep '10  11:11 : 0 recs

Here in Sweden, Ingves, has been paying attention to developments.

Interest rates up a quarter.
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
George Sore Ass
 02 Sep '10  08:57 : 0 recs

Nationwide: house prices fall 0.9% in August

QoQ rate of change now zero.

Time for another 175 billion injection....
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
MingToo
 02 Sep '10  08:49 : 0 recs : edited 1 time : last edit 02 Sep '10  08:50

Ming:
Are you a comedian on purpose, or just a self deprecating idiot?

Here is the date of Large's post:
Mike Large, 18 Oct '04 10:26

Here is the date of the article you post a link to:
July 9, 2008 23:58 EDT

Do the Math. You claim to be a Physics Grad. You're only off by four years PLUS A MONTH! The whole discussion was 3rd Q anyway.


No, this is a discussion about Q2 2008 GDP where we all said it had fallen and you said that we (and the press) all had it wrong and it was GDP growth that had fallen. I wasn't even on these boards on 2004.

Here is your message:

17 Aug '08 23:22 : 0 recs : edited 2 times : last edit 17 Aug '08 23:49

Second Edit: To those in this forum who are so easily misled. The reporting above is faulty. It is a very common mistake, not that many would notice it seems.

On a quarterly basis, Singapore's gross domestic product (GDP) was down 6 percent, from an increase of 15.7 percent in the first quarter, the data showed.

Wrong!

Here is directly from the Sngpr MTI website:
[...]Growth on an annualised, quarter-on-quarter basis fell by 6.0 per cent, from an increase of 15.7 per cent in the first quarter.

GDP Growth...not GDP.


And here is the reality:

As posted at the time by Bloomberg.

Singapore's Growth Slows, Signaling Weaker Expansion in Asia

The economy shrank an annualized 6.6 percent in the three months to June, contracting for the second time in three quarters. It grew a revised 15.6 percent in the first quarter.

And the figures from the Singapore government:

Singapore Government Figures (see Page 2)

Note the 2008 Q1 and Q2 figures at the top:

Q1 GDP = 63,239.2
Q2 GDP = 62,220.2

GDP fell in Singapore in Q2 2008. The fall as a percentage was (63,239-62,220) / 63,239 * 100 = 1.6% quarter on quarter.

Which comes out to around an annualised GDP fall of 6% just like Bloomberg and everyone was saying.

Ready now ?
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
zorro
 02 Sep '10  08:00 : 0 recs : edited 2 times : last edit 02 Sep '10  08:01

Incidentally, it is most unpatriotic of Ron Paul to keep banging on about an audit of the Ford Knox gold.

As an unrelated matter, I think gold is soon heading for quite a nice little slide.
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
zorro
 02 Sep '10  07:55 : 0 recs : edited 1 time : last edit 02 Sep '10  07:56

SSaines

Could you please explain in simple sentences, refering to facts only, in what way it is incorrect to say that the Fed is going to have more QE soon? It is quite impossible to follow your drifts, since you actually don't say anything, apart from expressing emotion.

The very link that you quoted proves that more QE is exactly what has been decided:

voting 9 to 1 to use proceeds from the Fed’s mortgage bonds to buy long-term Treasury securities.

'The proceeds from the Fed's mortgage bonds' are themselves a result of QE money, thus we are talking about fractional QE now, LOL.
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
ssaines
 02 Sep '10  05:00 : 0 recs : edited 2 times : last edit 02 Sep '10  05:14

Just reviewing what I posted an hour ago. A reminder, Zorro, you now state:
the US are stepping up buying their own bonds, thus diluting the dollar.

Really?
September 1, 2010, 2:30 am

Federal Reserve officials expressed considerable uncertainty before they took a nearly unanimous vote on Aug. 10 to take a modest step to bolster the flagging recovery, according to the central bank’s minutes of the meeting, Sewell Chan writes in The New York Times.

The meeting, which lasted 5 hours and 35 minutes, longer than usual, ended with the Federal Open Market Committee, which sets monetary policy, voting 9 to 1 to use proceeds from the Fed’s mortgage bonds to buy long-term Treasury securities.

The action was largely technical — it merely prevented the Fed’s bond portfolio from shrinking [...]


Fed Divided on Move to Buy U.S. Debt

Gee, I wonder how your 'cheering section' will interpret that?

You may wish to dwell on this for a moment or two, Zorro. Please get help with the parts you have difficulty understanding. Never be afraid to ask for directions when you feel lost.
While the committee closed ranks behind the Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, who supported the move and whose views are generally decisive in setting policy, the minutes suggested that he would have to go even further to overcome his colleagues’ reservations if the Fed were to resume buying huge quantities of government debt — an action Mr. Bernanke has said he is prepared to take if the economy worsens significantly.


And since you feel all "Yank" Press is biased (save for the Gold Nuts, they're alright), here's a take from the UK Biz Press:
Economists say the Fed's first option will be to buy US Treasuries, in the hope that this will reduce mortgage rates - which are traditionally related to Treasury yields - and so raise households' disposable incomes. But Michael Gapen at Barclays Capital warns that such a move is only a possibility, rather than a probability and the Fed will only move if employment falls or if GDP growth looks like dropping below 1.5 per cent.

And this isn't likely very soon, says Charles Dumas of Lombard Street Research. He believes that GDP growth was depressed in the second quarter by a flood of imports from China, caused by Chinese producers taking advantage of export incentives which the government has since withdrawn. As import penetration falls back, he says, GDP growth could accelerate once again.

Other economists say that even if the Fed does buy Treasuries, it won't necessarily stimulate the economy. It is bank finance, rather than capital market finance, that is in short supply. What's more, lower bond yields might even depress the economy, if firms interpret them as a sign of worsening prospects; traditionally, bond yields have been a good economic forecaster.

For this reason, some advocate a more radical policy. Nick Rowe, a professor of economics at Carleton University in Ottawa, says the Fed should buy cyclical assets such as corporate bonds and equities. Rises in their prices, he says, might improve business optimism and so encourage investment and hiring.


Investor Chronicle: - Fed to act on stalling growth?

I certainly hope that you can understand the many words in English. Cue the hyenas....
Whereas Canada is likely to retain a strong currency. Good luck in selling your natural resources to the Yanks for confetti.

Are you being 'euphemistic' again, Zorro, or just demonstrating a gross misunderstanding of economics and fortune yet again?

"Confetti". Uh huh....
Hysteria
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
ssaines
 02 Sep '10  02:51 : 0 recs : edited 1 time : last edit 02 Sep '10  03:09

Ming:
Are you a comedian on purpose, or just a self deprecating idiot?

Here is the date of Large's post:
Mike Large, 18 Oct '04 10:26

Here is the date of the article you post a link to:
July 9, 2008 23:58 EDT

Do the Math. You claim to be a Physics Grad. You're only off by four years PLUS A MONTH! The whole discussion was 3rd Q anyway.

Hey....
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
ssaines
 02 Sep '10  02:41 : 0 recs

Ming: Post it again, I can't be bothered wading back through the nonsense.
Zorro wrote:
the Bernanke announcement of more QE imminent?
Jeezus lady. How thick are you?

It isn't "imminent" by his own words! What the hell does "announcement" mean if not his own words? And none of the other morons get it.

Produce his "announcement" where he states it being "imminent" . Quite the contrary, albeit I do realize you have an abject problem understanding language.

Perhaps you could correct his spelling?

Oh, btw Ming, thanks for making a liar out of the others. You're not supposed to talk to me. Hey, Chief, what happened to "plonked"?

No wonder the nation is in such a mess when persons can't even attribute reference to what they claim Bernanke "announced".

In his remarks, the Federal Reserve chairman came across as a sober-minded central banker who is prepared to act forcefully if the economy weakens. That force could come in the form of the Fed buying large amounts of bonds to help further lower borrowing costs, a policy that was used during the financial crisis and is sometimes labeled quantitative easing, or QE. While Mr. Bernanke did discuss expanding the Fed's bond holdings, he also suggested it wasn't yet necessary because economic growth looks likely to pick up next year.


WSJ: How the Fed Could Employ QE Again


'c' writes:
I suspect that we are the only posters who like jazz.
I know otherwise. I play it as well as listen to it, albeit not all Jazz. Some is pretty plastic, like a lot of Pop.

Some is serene and heavenly....
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
MingToo
 01 Sep '10  23:33 : 0 recs

Saines:

Ready to admit you were wrong about Singapore GDP yet ? I quoted the figures 'at the time' that you wanted ... but I see you haven't replied yet.

Ming
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  
1 to 20 of 89751
 


© Copyright 2010