No it isn't, try using the web you'll find it is you that is talking gobbledygook The argument that your putting is these reports are describing the asking prices, and the prices that the are sold at are often different, hence your claim that they are false. You can get data on houses sold along with the price that they were sold at, you can also get data on asking prices, both are valid in what they show, but you shouldn't mix the two to try and support an argument.
overwhelmed.
The idea of PFI is that it isn't include in the PSBR
Read it, it says the index is based on house purchases. actual sales not asking price Now I could do all your homework but I will let you supply some evidence to any claims you make.
Its Enron style accounting. PFI is a long term financial liability, in the same way that the cost would be if the gvt borrowed directly. It is not free money, and it is in excess of 100 billion.
Gaz
When PFI was first thought of by the Tories it was argued as the answer to fund public services that did not push up PSBR
PFI can be a good way of funding capital projects, it can give a good deal to the taxpayers, i am not against it in principle, and I am not objecting to this governments use of PFI, if it gives the best deal. But taking PFI off PSBR does not mean the debt does not exist, it does and it is there. It is an accounting trick to claim otherwise.
Gaz
I've already pointed out that some are asking prices and some are finally agreed prices.
That sentence is a mess of pronouns - no point in addressing it.
I'm not trying to mix the two, I'm attempting to get an idea of the DIFFERENCE between the two. Such a figure is meaningful in mirroring the state of the market and whether or not it reflects a bias in favour of the seller or a bias in favour of the buyer.
Do you see?
In short, I am suggesting that this is a critical point and that the indices are failing to provide a reliable picture.
From the Halifax website:-
"The Halifax House Price Index is prepared from information that we believe is collated with care, but we do not make any statement as to its accuracy or completeness"
Well...... fancy that!
"Stephen Glynn" wrote
The Sun is playing a long game. The Tories didn't look like winning, so why back them? But finger Brown as the culprit early enough and it can smoothly realign itself in 2009.
"Stephen Glynn" wrote
It's an extremely sophisticated and well-designed product. You don't sell 3 million copies a day unless you are very, very good at what you do.
"curiosity" wrote
ISTR that debt accounted for 6% on average over the last 8 years, so not out of whack with your 8%. The problem is that growth was only 3%. Take out the debt - growth brought forward which will have to be given up in the future - and real growth was actually negative. We've been in recession for 8 years and using cheap debt to kid ourselves otherwise.
"M Holmes" wrote
Wonder if it'll be a bank or a hedge fund that drops a wobbly?
"Chris.S" wrote
The trillion pound debt is 82% mortgages and 18% other - loans, cards, and overdrafts - and the over 50s are the ones who've been taking it on, as they are the ones who have assets whose appreciation they think is perpetual and will painlessly pay debt off them. The idea that it's innumerate youngsters borrowing all the money is not substantiated by much hard data that I've ever seen.
Certainly. The Sun's main selling point, however, isn't its coverage of politics and economics; just look at how much space it devotes to those subjects as opposed, for example, to the scandalous doings of celebs.
Steve
Indeed. AIUI, the Sun's main policy is to back the winning side.
Steve
I'm affected by it. I could actually afford something at the bottom end of the market now :-)
"Stephen Glynn" wrote
Agreed if we are talking about selling points to its readers. Its main selling point to the likes of Blair and Brown are that it can influence those celebrity-obsessed readers, which is no doubt why Blair acts more like a celebrity than a serious individual.
"Stephen Glynn" wrote
That's certainly what I think.
Hrm, if there was no liability then contracts wouldn't be changing hands at x3 the original contract value. A couple of weeks back some analyst extrapolated the PFI liabilities over a 30 year term, he was predicting it consuming an obscene amount of the public finances by that stage, not that anyone really cares at the moment.
Quite. Indeed the Tories version of PFI was generally unliked by investors as it transferred risk onto the private sector (the whole point!!!), and was not taken up in volume. Labour came in with great plans, for significant capital improvement programmes in hospitals and schools. The PFIs where trickling in, not enough to fund the expansion.
PFIs now contain virtually no risk to the private sector. Without risk, the private sector can be far sloppier then the pulic sector.
Gaz
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required