House price reports - 3 comments

According to the BBC:

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors' (Rics) said that 78.5% more surveyors reported a fall than a rise in house prices in March.

Sounds dramatic: I wonder if anyone thought that meant that 89.25% reported a fall, and 10.75% a rise (89.25 - 10.75 = 78.5)? Or else that 78.5% reported a fall?

In fact, if we take the article at its word, and assume that no surveyors reported no change, it turns out only 64.1% saw a fall, 35.9% a rise (64.1 / 35.9 = 1.785). Let's assume that 20% actually saw no change at all, which doesn't seem too unreasonable: that would take the fallers down to 51.3%, and the risers to 28.7%. That wouldn't be dramatic, unless there really was a sound reason for an inexorable rise in the asset in question, and it says nothing about the size of any increase or decrease.

I'll assume that the BBC doesn't have an agenda to shock, and didn't spin the figures for maximum effect, but whoever pitched the story did. The question is, as Chris Dillow and others have asked, Why Worry? I'd like to see the focus of economic policy shift away from the preservation of the domestic housing market back to things that matter to the entire population, not just those lucky enough to have acquired a phoney wealth by buying or selling their house at the right time: investment in businesses; education, training, working practices, employment, and productivity; the free movement of capital and labour; and international trade.