d2thdr Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 70%? http://www.londononl...ile/historical/ 1961 7,992,616 (Greater London) 1971 7,452,520 (Greater London) 1981 6,805,000 (Greater London - midyear est I am sure there is a podcast on their website. you can listen to it yourself. 70% reduction in population will bring about at least 70% reduction in prices in nominal terms. In real terms I do not know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 I am sure there is a podcast on their website. you can listen to it yourself. 70% reduction in population will bring about at least 70% reduction in prices in nominal terms. In real terms I do not know. 70%! That is more of a reduction than Detroit, the city with the biggest population decline in the modern western world! I can tell you that is figure is totally wrong, (and that's 100% correct ). 7% maybe. But AFAIR, that was more to do with rebanding the areas of central, mid and greater London at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbubb Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 70%! That is more of a reduction than Detroit, the city with the biggest population decline in the modern western world! I can tell you that is figure is totally wrong, (and that's 100% correct ). 7% maybe. But AFAIR, that was more to do with rebanding the areas of central, mid and greater London at that time. 70% reduction in population, even a 30% or 50% drop in population would bring a huge crash in prices to below "replacement value" - as in Detroit. Prices there typically trade for below the cost of land or below the price of the bricks - unless it is a particularly nice neighborhood - and there are a few nice walkable parts of Detroit and its suburbs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 70% reduction in population, even a 30% or 50% drop in population would bring a huge crash in prices to below "replacement value" - as in Detroit. Prices there typically trade for below the cost of land or below the price of the bricks - unless it is a particularly nice neighborhood - and there are a few nice walkable parts of Detroit and its suburbs Agreed, that was my point. If London had a 70% population reduction in the 1970's, as was suggested, it would have been the end of London, and probably the rest of the country too. So, it didn't happen, and it's a pretty good bet that it won't happen (Baring a natural disaster or something similar). Especially not with 250,000 net immigrants arriving each year, even in the midst of a massive economic downturn, most heading to the South East. Detroit, AFAIR was a heavy industry city, (cars etc) and was hammered when the mass workforces, numbering in the 100's of thousands in some car plants, were effectively all thrown out of work back in the 80's. I remember reading Michael Moore’s stuff back then, "Downsize This" and watching "Roger and Me" (both worth a look). These places (Detroit and Flint Michigan) were absolutely decimated, much like parts of the UK under Thatcher, but on an even bigger scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunlee Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 A 70 percent fall in London's population in the 70's simply didn't happen. Heavens even the population of the economic catastrophe zone that is Liverpool has only fallen by about 45 percent since the peak, and that in 70 years or so. Are you sure that they didn't say 17 percent, as the figures from the london online link suggest? Or were not merely referring to a particular borough, i.e. The City of London? Anyone thinking that the population of London will fall by 70 percent, short of a nuclear attack is living in cloud cuckoo land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbubb Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 A 70 percent fall in London's population in the 70's simply didn't happen. Heavens even the population of the economic catastrophe zone that is Liverpool has only fallen by about 45 percent since the peak, and that in 70 years or so. Are you sure that they didn't say 17 percent, as the figures from the london online link suggest? Or were not merely referring to a particular borough, i.e. The City of London? Anyone thinking that the population of London will fall by 70 percent, short of a nuclear attack is living in cloud cuckoo land. Here are the actual and update figures from : a new thread Population statistics for London Year Population 1 Fewer than 5,000 500 Fewer than 5,000 1066 Est 5,000 - 40,000 (William the Conqueror) 1600 Est 200,000 1650 Est 350,000 1300 Est 50,000 - 100,000 1700 Est 700,000 1801 958,863 1821 1,378,947 1841 1,948,417 1861 2,803,989 1881 3,815,544 (or Greater London 4,776,661) 1891 4,211,056 (or Greater London 5,633,332) 1899 6,528,434 (Greater London) 1939 8,615,245 (Greater London) - population's peak 1951 8,196,978 (Greater London) 1961 7,992,616 (Greater London) 1971 7,452,520 (Greater London) ===== 1981 6,805,000 (Greater London - midyear est) 1991 6,829,300 : + 024,300, over 10 years 2001 7,322,400 : + 493,100, over 10 years / +7.22% 2002 7,361,600 : + 39,200 : + 0.54 % 2003 7,364,100 : + 02,500 : + 0.03 % 2004 7,389,100 : + 25,000 : + 0.34 % 2005 7,456,100 : + 67,000 : + 0.91 % 2006 7,512,400 : + 56,300 : + 0.76 % 2007 7,556,900 : + 44,500 : + 0.59 % : www.statistics.gov.uk 2008 7,620,000 : + 63,100 : + 0.83 % : LDA.gov.uk 2009 7,753,600 : +133,600 :+ 1.75 % 2010 7,825,200 : + 71,600 : + 0.92 % : ONS data, 6/2011 2011 7,900,000E: +577,600 : over 10 years : +7.89% Estimate /source: http://www.londononline.co.uk/factfile/historical/ /newer : http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Update%2011-2011%20Mid-2010%20population%20estimates.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 Here are the actual and update figures from : a new thread You are forgetting the boundary changes, which have had a large effect. There have been a considerable number of small changes to the Greater London boundary since its creation in 1965. The most significant of these were the 1969 transfers of Knockholt to Kent and Farleigh to Surrey[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greater_London_boundary_changes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chazza Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 Apparently there is some sort of crack-up boom in housing in Germany, reports Der Spiegel today. http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/service/0,1518,799698,00.html Not sure this charts' data is reliable enought to show this: http://gold.approximity.com/since2006/German_House_Price_Index.html At last, might be able to offload my Berlin investment fund then.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chazza Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 A very quick and unscientific look at the immobilienscout website suggested that prices at the top end in the big German cities are rising at about 15 to 20 percent a year. Of course it is a website for the selling of real estate so those figures could be exaggerated, asking prices in my area are about 20 to 25 percent higher than 2 years ago. One tennanted flat for sale is proudly announcing a 4.24 percent yield. Rents are rising quickly. Not according to my fund though it does seem that over the past year things are moving a bit more. The ability to raise rents (which is happening a bit more) is helping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plastic Elastic Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 At last, might be able to offload my Berlin investment fund then.. May I ask what sort of investment fund you are talking about? I might be interested... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d2thdr Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 Agreed, that was my point. If London had a 70% population reduction in the 1970's, as was suggested, it would have been the end of London, and probably the rest of the country too. So, it didn't happen, and it's a pretty good bet that it won't happen (Baring a natural disaster or something similar). Especially not with 250,000 net immigrants arriving each year, even in the midst of a massive economic downturn, most heading to the South East. Detroit, AFAIR was a heavy industry city, (cars etc) and was hammered when the mass workforces, numbering in the 100's of thousands in some car plants, were effectively all thrown out of work back in the 80's. I remember reading Michael Moore's stuff back then, "Downsize This" and watching "Roger and Me" (both worth a look). These places (Detroit and Flint Michigan) were absolutely decimated, much like parts of the UK under Thatcher, but on an even bigger scale. Most immigrants arriving are the NINJA types. They do not will not help the economy. If London had a 70% population reduction in the 1970's, as was suggested, it would have been the end of London, and probably the rest of the country too. So, it didn't happen, and it's a pretty good bet that it won't happen :lol: OK if you say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 Most immigrants arriving are the NINJA types. They do not will not help the economy. OK if you say so. Er actually, a lot of the rise in population was due to emigration reducing, and beisdes, everyone knows that most of the "NINJAs" come in under the radar and aren't included in the official stats. Oh and (I think everyone agrees now) there wasn't a 70% reduction in the London population However, if you really think there will be a 70% reduction in the population of London without a major natural disaster etc, then pass that big fat blifter you're tuggin on this way dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerpy Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 That rare beast that starts the whole process is going deeper in to hibernation. First-time buyers are "rarely seen", estate agents say, with their share of the UK housing market having fallen to a three-year low. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15887612 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbubb Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 I am double-or-triple-posting this here, so I can be sure people will see it (It is also on the -3% Drop in Asking prices thread- and the London Population thread in GPC.) LONDON's Changing Population There are limitations in the population data I collected - but it still shows us a lot. I have data approximately only every ten years until 2000, and then every year. But this still allows me to compare the recent data with long term trends going back to 1800. The striking thing is how dramatic the trend change was about 1980. In about that year, Greater London population made an important change in trend. The population had been in a falling trend since about 1951. From that year, Greater London had been losing people an average of about 50,000 people per year for two decades. If you look at the data more carefully, you will see that Central London (which represented perhaps 36% of Greater London's population in 1981, had been losing population at nearly the same number of people per year, but at a percentage rate which was roughly double during the worst years of 1971-1980.) But all this changed in about 1980. The trend reversed and we saw : Average Population Gains, per annum ========== : Greater London : London, Central 1951 - 1960 :-20,436/-0.25% :-18,867/-0.53% 1961 - 1970 :-53,992/-0.69% :-53,356/-1.63% 1971 - 1980 :-64,752/-0.90% :-53,369/-1.94% 1981 - 1990 : 02,430 /+0.04% : 07,882 /+0.32% 1991 - 2000 : 53,230 /+0.78% : 26,152 /+1.00% Population losses from 1951-1981 were nearly all in Central London: Greater London : 1,391,807 : -16.98% London,Central : 1,255,922 : -34.11% Non-Central ---- : 0,155,775 Why the dramatic change in trend? I believe the key things were three big changes: North Sea Oil, Property speculation and the Financialisation of the global economy. The arrival of massive North Sea oil revenues (in late 1970's) finally turned around the UK economy, stabilised Sterling, reduced interest rates, and allowed London to rebuild its economy around the financial sector and property speculation. Since then, a mostly steady trend of falling interest rates, and a shift of the UK population back into London have created a huge (and unsustainable) financial sector, and a huge (and unsustainable) property bubble. Year : Gr. London : Change / Pct. Chg. : 2001 7,322,400 : 2002 7,361,600 : + 39,200 : + 0.54 % 2003 7,364,100 : + 02,500 : + 0.03 % 2004 7,389,100 : + 25,000 : + 0.34 % 2005 7,456,100 : + 67,000 : + 0.91 % 2006 7,512,400 : + 56,300 : + 0.76 % 2007 7,556,900 : + 44,500 : + 0.59 % 2008 7,620,000 : + 63,100 : + 0.83 % 2009 7,753,600 : +133,600 :+ 1.75 % 2010 7,825,200 : + 71,600 : + 0.92 % The financial crisis of 2008 triggered quantitative easing (which the UK pioneered). That restimulated financial markets and the UK property market and the result was MORE people were attracted to London, bringing the largest jump in population since the post-WW2 rebuilding days, and the old glory days of Britain's empire. But is this sustainable? The two self-reinforcing bubbles of finance and property may be about to burst together. Interest rates are now at ultra-low levels - the lowest in Britain's long history. Can they possibly fall any lower while the UK's debt builds relentlessly, and a second and more serious banking crisis looms? Surely, those who still have some capital to lend when the banking bubble bursts, will want a higher return for lending it out. In a world of banking stress, I can hardly imagine that the UK will be able to maintain employment and salary levels in its financial sector. Also, to save money, government and other employers will be looking to shift jobs out of London to less expensive locations. As I write this the ratio of London property prices is at a record in relation to the average property prices in the UK. This can hardly be sustained, if rates rise, and the UK financial sector begins to shrink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 I am double-or-triple-posting this here, so I can be sure people will see it (It is also on the -3% Drop in Asking prices thread- and the London Population thread in GPC.) Then I had better put this on those 3 threads too, as your data is seriously flawed. Did you not see the big changes in boundary that was shown previously? Whole boroughs that were classed as being in Greater London, were moved to other areas, for example the 1969 transfers of Knockholt to Kent and Farleigh to Surrey, You cannot look at this data in isolation as it is meaningless unless you keep the original borders. If you take these factors into account, you will not see the big drop like the one you present. Indeed, it might even show a rise. You also forget that during the 40's to 80's, industry attracted workers to the big industrial cities, like Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool etc. Then, as Thatcher decimated these places, people went to where the "new" jobs were. London and the S.E. Then, over the last few years, immigration has reached record proportions with most newcomers going to London. This is the main reason for the big rise in the last few years. You really need to look at the whole picture, and not just take snip-bits that suit the argument of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunlee Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 Here is explicit confirmation from Martin Weale of the Bank of England that they will do anything to stop house prices falling. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15888358 "It is designed to put more cash into the UK financial system, to reduce long-term borrowing costs, and to push up the value of assets such as shares and house prices." Given that they can print as much money as they want, and that there is apparently no pressure to raise interest rates it would take a brave man to bet against the Bank of England. Here is another quote from the article. "But nevertheless, unless the economic situation improves, there is likely to be a strong case for extending the asset purchase programme after the current one comes to an end." These cretins have convinced themselves that they can print their way to recovery, the printing will not stop short of a hyper-inflation. You can go on deluding yourself that the population will fall 70 percent and keep on waiting for a mythical house price crash. In the mean time someone who bought in 2004 and has been paying off their mortgage quickly has probably paid at least a third off by now and will be mortage free before 2020. Will there still be people on HPC then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 Here is explicit confirmation from Martin Weale of the Bank of England that they will do anything to stop house prices falling. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15888358 "It is designed to put more cash into the UK financial system, to reduce long-term borrowing costs, and to push up the value of assets such as shares and house prices." Given that they can print as much money as they want, and that there is apparently no pressure to raise interest rates it would take a brave man to bet against the Bank of England. Here is another quote from the article. "But nevertheless, unless the economic situation improves, there is likely to be a strong case for extending the asset purchase programme after the current one comes to an end." These cretins have convinced themselves that they can print their way to recovery, the printing will not stop short of a hyper-inflation. You can go on deluding yourself that the population will fall 70 percent and keep on waiting for a mythical house price crash. In the mean time someone who bought in 2004 and has been paying off their mortgage quickly has probably paid at least a third off by now and will be mortage free before 2020. Will there still be people on HPC then? That's right, some of us deflationists realised this a few years back. The game is rigged. Indeed, those that bought in 2004 (especially those with practically 0% trackers) will be able to overpay by so much they will probably be mortgage free by 2015! Think they are going to worry about a 10%, 20% or even a 30% fall in their property price (IF it ever happens)? Not a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunlee Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 Yep I was a deflationist and in the winter of 2008 was expecting a HPC of 50 to 60 percent. Then the QE came and then continued and then continued more with apparently no ill effects, indeed the pound strengthened considerably between winter 2008 and summer 2009 and I finally gave up at the end of the summer. Honestly, the mods and owners of HPC should be ashamed of themselves. By banning anyone who even suggests otherwise they have created a kind of crazed HPC cargo cult. If the crash doesn't happen, as any kind of sensible analysis of reality suggests it won't, then they will have played a part in messing up the lives of thousands of people by talking people out of buying. Even if there are large falls in the future, still most people would have been better off buying in 2003-5 or 2009-2010 as they could have been paying off their mortgage. I think that we need some kind of acronym JD. Something like Wanted and Expected a HPC but Surrendered to QE. WEHPCSQE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixel8r Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 Yep I was a deflationist and in the winter of 2008 was expecting a HPC of 50 to 60 percent. Then the QE came and then continued and then continued more with apparently no ill effects, indeed the pound strengthened considerably between winter 2008 and summer 2009 and I finally gave up at the end of the summer. Honestly, the mods and owners of HPC should be ashamed of themselves. By banning anyone who even suggests otherwise they have created a kind of crazed HPC cargo cult. If the crash doesn't happen, as any kind of sensible analysis of reality suggests it won't, then they will have played a part in messing up the lives of thousands of people by talking people out of buying. Even if there are large falls in the future, still most people would have been better off buying in 2003-5 or 2009-2010 as they could have been paying off their mortgage. I think that we need some kind of acronym JD. Something like Wanted and Expected a HPC but Surrendered to QE. WEHPCSQE. There has been and continues to be a massive HPC, just not when you value houses in the pound that is being printed to oblivion. This is the main fault that the HPC website has, they didn't value house prices using the correct currencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunlee Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 There has been and continues to be a massive HPC, just not when you value houses in the pound that is being printed to oblivion. This is the main fault that the HPC website has, they didn't value house prices using the correct currencies. Yep agreed. I guess that UK houses will fall to around 70 ounces of gold at the bottom, or around 1500 ounces of silver, I seem to remember HPC banning discussion of gold until recently as well. I had 90 percent of my life savings in yen at the time so saw a greater crash, peak to trough of around 60 percent or so in yen terms. I have to say that UK houses still looked expensive even then to me, 'tis an ugly situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 There has been and continues to be a massive HPC, just not when you value houses in the pound that is being printed to oblivion. This is the main fault that the HPC website has, they didn't value house prices using the correct currencies. Fair points Pix (and all very true), but its a UK site, about UK houses and populated by people earning UK pounds. So, for your average Joe, working, living and paying down their mortgage in the UK, the price in yen, CHF, or Au is largely irrelevant, unless perhaps they took out a big mortgage sized loan in 2000 say, and bought gold, and then paid the interest and capital down over the next 11 years (to where we are now). So yes, of course home buyers are paying the hidden falls in their property values through increasing prices in everything else, but they don't see it that way, no matter how much people try to tell them, nor will they. It would be like trying to tell them that, compared to copper prices for example, their home values have fallen by 75% over the last year. They would say "Eh?" then "so what?" or the old "what's that got to do with the price of eggs" (ironic eh) Remember the old "the pound in your pocket" etc? They lapped it up then, and they are now. Plus ca change.... I guess in the end, it doesn't really matter for most people. Their home is their only investment. As long as they can pay their mortgage, they have a roof over their head and, once paid off, it's theirs. To them, you might even say, that they are living in their "Buy and Hold" investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d2thdr Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 You are very correct. What is your target for oz? Mine is 1 oz or less for a average British House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 You are very correct. What is your target for oz? Mine is 1 oz or less for a average British House. "Don't bogart that joint my friend" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbubb Posted November 27, 2011 Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 I found this chart very enlightening - and have posted it in three places. No one has commented about it yet - Perhaps I need to explain it. Here's some data that goes with it: 2002 7,361,600 : + 39,200 : + 0.54 % 2003 7,364,100 : + 02,500 : + 0.03 % 2004 7,389,100 : + 25,000 : + 0.34 % 2005 7,456,100 : + 67,000 : + 0.91 % 2006 7,512,400 : + 56,300 : + 0.76 % 2007 7,556,900 : + 44,500 : + 0.59 % 2008 7,620,000 : + 63,100 : + 0.83 % 2009 7,753,600 : +133,600 : + 1.75 % 2010 7,825,200 : + 71,600 : + 0.92 % What we saw in 2009 (right at the bottom of the GFC!), the Population of Greater London rose by 133,600 people in a single year! That sort of rise was what was previously seen only in the great boom of London in the 1890's (actually my data shows that Greater London added an average of 116,004 people per annum in 1892-1899), and then again after WW2 when people were flooding back into London. Funny thing was: 2007 was the peak in house prices, and property prices were falling fast in 2008. New home construction had all but stopped, and now suddenly there was a big surge in people moving to Greater London. No wonder rents have pushed up ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted November 27, 2011 Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 You are very correct. What is your target for oz? Mine is 1 oz or less for a average British House. When? And what will be the 'price' in pounds I wonder. 50-100K/oz, /Av house. I' be happy with that scenario in theory. But the UK might not be worth a punt at that price. ?. What sort of world is GBP 50K gold? First of all I'd like to see USD 5 or 10k/oz. Then we might know more of where we are going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now