1st world country, 3rd world situation, Uniquely Singapore
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Some folks still don't understand that property makes good hedges against inflation.
Despite showing him all the reports.
http://www.rst.nus.edu.sg/staff/singtienfoo/dollarDEX%20seminar%20-%203%20Aug.ppt
Originally posted by maurizio13:
The second element is inflation, the property you bought for $1,400,000 with an inflation of 6.7% a year, would have been priced at $1,493,800 at the end of 1 yearOriginally posted by Eagle:
Property goes up in price with inflation. You forgot about that.
http://politics.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/317706
Maurizio, please stop embarrassing yourself and the person who wrote the article.
-
You mean to say property don't go up with inflation?
Do you have articles to support that claim?
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
You mean to say property don't go up with inflation?
Do you have articles to support that claim?
There is a big difference when you say that property will generally appreciate over time, however what you and Eagle are trying to tell the forummers here is that in time of inflation property price will appreciate, and it will appreciate at the same pace as inflation..
Hope you see the difference.What is US inflation now vs their housing price?
What is UK inflation now vs their housing price?
What is Singapore inflation now vs our housing price?
Embarrassing isnt it?
-
You have no foundation in Economics?
If you want to look at housing prices versus inflation, you cannot take only 1 specific year and compare, take the historical price against inflation.
In the past housing prices have been speculative in US, housing prices increase higher than the inflation rate, therefore prices of houses are extremely inflated. If you mark year to year of housing prices to inflation, at current levels the house prices are not supported, that's why prices corrected itself. But if you look at the figures provided, the growth rate of US housing prices far surpasses that of the inflation rate.
Housing prices have been growing at an annualised rate of approximately 5.7%, but has CPI (inflation) increased at 5.7% every year? (A property bought in 1975 has increased to 6 times it's value in 32 years.) Go look at the CPI change column.
If you had bought a house in 1975 and kept it till 2008, you will still have make gains against inflation. It's an effective hedge against inflation.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vodkajim/housingbubble/US%20Median%20House%20Prices.xls
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
You have no foundation in Economics?
If you want to look at housing prices versus inflation, you cannot take only 1 specific year and compare, take the historical price against inflation.
In the past housing prices have been speculative in US, housing prices increase higher than the inflation rate, therefore prices of houses are extremely inflated. If you mark year to year of housing prices to inflation, at current levels the house prices are not supported, that's why prices corrected itself. But if you look at the figures provided, the growth rate of US housing prices far surpasses that of the inflation rate.
Housing prices have been growing at an annualised rate of approximately 5.7%, but has CPI (inflation) increased at 5.7% every year? Go look at the CPI change column.
If you had bought a house in 1975 and kept it till 2008, you will still have make gains against inflation. It's an effective hedge against inflation.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vodkajim/housingbubble/US%20Median%20House%20Prices.xls
Property price can be affected by many factors, it includes location, supply and demand, natural disaster, economic growth and stability, government policies etc,
While inflation on the other hand can be affected by war, market liquidity, industrial cartel, currency fluctuation, interest rate, taxation etc.
By claiming that inflation is a function of property price, you are simply showing your lack on understanding in what you are talking about.
No foundation in Economics? I think you should keep this statement for yourself instead.
-
Originally posted by O o O:
Property price can be affected by many factors, it includes location, supply and demand, natural disaster, economic growth and stability, government policies etc,
While inflation on the other hand can be affected by war, market liquidity, industrial cartel, currency fluctuation, interest rate, taxation etc.
By claiming that inflation is a function of property price, you are simply showing your lack on understanding in what you are talking about.
No foundation in Economics? I think you should keep this statement for yourself instead.
Aiyo!
Don't give me all that crap. Cite a research from a University like me (NUS), that states "Properties are a good hedge against inflation" or in your case "Properties are not a hedge against inflation".
If you can't retort directly you beat around the bush.
Can you dispute the data I have presented?
No?
Everybody knows that property prices are affected by all those events, it does not add value to your argument by stating the obvious that does not contradict my evidence.
Might as well say you need cement and steel to build apartments.
It's a fact, but it does not dispute my evidence that housing prices in US far exceeds the CPI index.
I think those NUS authors also lack understanding of property prices and inflation.
You are actually much smarter than them.
Oops forgot to post the NUS link for the benefit of folks here who don't have the time to read through the other link you provided.
http://www.rst.nus.edu.sg/staff/singtienfoo/dollarDEX%20seminar%20-%203%20Aug.ppt
-
The troll clown never fails to entertain.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Aiyo!
Don't give me all that crap. Cite a research from a University like me (NUS), that states "Properties are a good hedge against inflation" or in your case "Properties are not a hedge against inflation".
If you can't retort directly you beat around the bush.
Can you dispute the data I have presented?
No?
Everybody knows that property prices are affected by all those events, it does not add value to your argument by stating the obvious that does not contradict my evidence.
Might as well say you need cement and steel to build apartments.
It's a fact, but it does not dispute my evidence that housing prices in US far exceeds the CPI index.
Property price in Singapore is a good hedge against inflation because of many factors such as economic growth, stablity of the country and the lack of land supply in this country. Hence if you say that Singapore property price a good hedge against inflation over time. I would say yes, however I will not go as far as telling people that this is a economic principle which can be applied to any property in the world because of the reasons which I have mentioned in my earlier post.
And definitely I have not heard of any fool who dare to make the following statement except you and Eagle.
The second element is inflation, the property you bought for $1,400,000 with an inflation of 6.7% a year, would have been priced at $1,493,800 at the end of 1 year
Inflation = 6.7% so property price will appreciate by (6.7% x 1,400,000)
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
The troll clown never fails to entertain.
It's clowns like him that makes speakers' corner interesting. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
I think those NUS authors also lack understanding of property prices and inflation.
You are actually much smarter than them.
Oops forgot to post the NUS link for the benefit of folks here who don't have the time to read through the other link you provided.
http://www.rst.nus.edu.sg/staff/singtienfoo/dollarDEX%20seminar%20-%203%20Aug.ppt
I bet the reason why you edited your post to include the above statement is because you think it will make your argument sounds more credible (NUS leh..) Unfortunately to tell you the truth, it will actually make you look even more stupid because it only shows that you cant even tell the difference between what you wrote and that the article is trying to tell you.
I feel really sorry for you...Maurizio and I hope you are not a business grad.
-
Originally posted by O o O:
Property price in Singapore is a good hedge against inflation because of many factors such as economic growth, stablity of the country and the lack of land supply in this country. Hence if you say that Singapore property price a good hedge against inflation over time. I would say yes, however I will not go as far as telling people that this is a economic principle which can be applied to any property in the world because of the reasons which I have mentioned in my earlier post.
And definitely I have not heard of any fool who dare to make the following statement except you and Eagle.
The second element is inflation, the property you bought for $1,400,000 with an inflation of 6.7% a year, would have been priced at $1,493,800 at the end of 1 year
Inflation = 6.7% so property price will appreciate by (6.7% x 1,400,000)
The US historical house price index and inflation index already presented to you.The NUS report by the Associate Professor Sing Tien Foo for Centre for Real Estate Studies already provided to you.
http://www.rst.nus.edu.sg/staff/singtienfoo/cvdetails-stf.pdf
If you don't have the intelligence to understand, I can't help you. If you persist in being retarded, nobody can help you.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
It's clowns like him that makes speakers' corner interesting.
Hee hee hee, he is the most interesting troll clown here. Sometimes, he is a prata man, sometimes he is a detective, sometimes he is a lawyer, sometimes he is a patient from IMH, sometimes he is a mouse. -
Originally posted by O o O:
I bet the reason why you edited your post is because you think that if you included the above statement it will make your argument sounds more credible. Unfortunately to tell you the truth, it will actually make you look even more stupid because it only shows that you cant even tell the difference between what you wrote and that the article is trying to tell you.
I feel really sorry for you...Maurizio and I hope you are not a business grad.
Happy trolling and being stupid, you do not need any effort in being stupid, it's all natural to you.
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Hee hee hee, he is the most interesting troll clown here. Sometimes, he is a prata man, sometimes he is a detective, sometimes he is a lawyer, sometimes he is a patient from IMH, sometimes he is a mouse.The NUS Associate Professor in Centre for Real Estate Studies said "Properties are Good Hedges Against Inflation", he thinks otherwise. I wonder what kind of dork is he.
-
Originally posted by O o O:
I bet the reason why you edited your post to include the above statement is because you think it will make your argument sounds more credible (NUS leh..) Unfortunately to tell you the truth, it will actually make you look even more stupid because it only shows that you cant even tell the difference between what you wrote and that the article is trying to tell you.
I feel really sorry for you...Maurizio and I hope you are not a business grad.
Whyever can he not be? I believe that everyone can do business grad or not. As long as you have the right qualities, you can do business. No need for that piece of paper. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
The NUS Associate Professor in Centre for Real Estate Studies said "Properties are Good Hedges Against Inflation", he thinks otherwise. I wonder what kind of dork is he.
I really dont want to waste my time talking to you and commenting on your stupid statement about property price and inflation. If you think you are right and the article supports your statement, may I suggest that you send the below statement to the concerning professor and ask for his comment.
The second element is inflation, the property you bought for $1,400,000 with an inflation of 6.7% a year, would have been priced at $1,493,800 at the end of 1 year
-
Originally posted by O o O:
I really dont want to waste my time talking to you and commenting on your stupid statement about property price and inflation. If you think you are right, may I suggest that you send the below statement to the concerning professor and ask for his comment.
The second element is inflation, the property you bought for $1,400,000 with an inflation of 6.7% a year, would have been priced at $1,493,800 at the end of 1 year
And let me ask you. Why do you think its not possible?
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
The NUS Associate Professor in Centre for Real Estate Studies said "Properties are Good Hedges Against Inflation", he thinks otherwise. I wonder what kind of dork is he.
This silly troll is living in his own fictitious world. -
Originally posted by Fantagf:
This silly troll is living in his own fictitious world.
I go watch my 三国演义.曹� reminds me so much of MM Lee.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
I go watch my 三国演义.曹� reminds me so much of MM Lee.
Not Red Cliff that you watch right? Both share the same traits. Cao cao is remembered till today, but I cannot speak the same for the M M Lee. -
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Not Red Cliff that you watch right? Both share the same traits. Cao cao is remembered till today, but I cannot speak the same for the M M Lee.
Nope, watching the China production from long ago.I think they very cruel, they actually burn the bulls (Zhuge's southern expedition in Yunan) during production of the TV serial. You can see the bulls running and falling with flames on their body.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Nope, watching the China production from long ago.I think they very cruel, they actually burn the bulls (Zhuge's southern expedition in Yunan) during production of the TV serial. You can see the bulls running and falling with flames on their body.
Shake my head. I don't support animal cruelty. Is this a more accurate version than the Red Cliff?
-
The troll even managed to bring in an unrelated topic on inflation and property into this thread.
Guess incoherency is indeed 2nd nature to him.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
The troll even managed to bring in an unrelated topic on inflation and property into this thread.
Guess incoherency is indeed 2nd nature to him.
Eagle, please try to stay focus on the subject and dont get carried away by all the meaningless small talks with all the empty vessel in this forum.
Can you back up what you said with facts and to prove to us that you are right to make the following statements?
1) It is more cost effective for government to give out money to people using age class instead of income class.
2) You claim that company can benefit from employing housewife to do nothing.
3) You claim that company can pay employee only CPF contribution and not salary
4) You claim that it is not illegal to evade tax by employing dummy employee to that does nothing.
-
Double posts. Something is wrong up there in the brain.
