Interest rates and zee big wanks, sorry, banks.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.news.com.au/finance/economy/interest-rates/westpac-refuses-to-pass-on-cuts-reducing-variable-rate-by-just-015/news-story/d6345f1407a54a1660bd7a3d0e4487c2

What's your take? Where does the reserve bank/ govt go from here to stimulate the economy?

Is the perpetual economic growth model dead?

 

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • I’ve been saying it for years, perpetual growth is impossible.

    How can the double digit growth that companies want and demand be possible long term? Without huge population growth this type of economic growth is impossible. I’m a capitalist, centrist, but I do think we need to reconsider or reboot our financial model/system or we may just be in for a major major depression.

    Also I don’t think privatisation of every bloody thing is the answer either. Governments need to control to some degree essential utilities, if not the avg joe blow can’t keep up with the cost of living. All mass privatisation achieves is the pushing up of prices to allow double digit growth for executives and their companies.

    • What he said ^ 

      • Shit  I agree with you both. I'm very concerned.

  • From here we go to negative interest rates and QE, and then we go to a recession.

  • These (experts ) in the reserve bank are leading us down an unowned path tempting young people to borrow at low interest rates than when rates rise leading to unaffordable repayments 

  • Should the govt. still be trying to get us into surplus?

    Can they still brag about being good economic managers?

    Are the big banks just see you in the N.Ts?

    • The govt shouldn't be hell bent on running a surplus - it's practically meaningless. What they need to do is try and find a way to deal with the massive amount of debt in the system. Unfortunately there's not much they can do - it's not like they can drop rates (remember when they dropped rates to "emergency" levels after the GFC - that was something like 4%!!). They're plugging on about the surplus, the unemployment rate (which is bullshit - UNDERemployment is an epidemic) and inflation (why the fuck do we need inflation - wages growth is flatlining)

      They are terrible economic managers. The economy has grown on a construction boom, coupled with a credit frenzy,  that can't (and hasn't) go on forever. We have been in a per capita recession for a few years now. Now they've junked the Aussie dollar which is a terrible outcome for many. Highly leveraged families (and Aussie families are as highly leveraged as anyone on the planet) have a very tough few years ahead.

      The big banks have already started taking profit hits. The bank's share prices, profits and dividends will all head south over the next 12 months.

      It's not a good look.

      • This reply was deleted.
        • "It's Time"

          Mate, they blow smoke up our arse at every opportunity, but when you look at all the indicators - and there's tonnes of them - I can't for the life of me work out how we're going to avoid some sort of pretty ruthless financial impact - not only in Australia but on a global scale.

          We've just dropped rates to the lowest level EVER and the bulk of the media is telling us that things are on the up. Please.

          One thing's for certain though mate - the rich will get richer and the poor (including the middle class) will get poorer.

      • Kram, I'm no expert on economics, but one thing I do understand about inflation is that Governments, or anyone with debt, like inflation as it reduces the cost of longer term debt. As an example, let's say you buy a house for 100k, and at the time have income of 20k. You might be making repayments of 5k per year, so it costs you 25% of your income to meet the payments. 10 years later, all other things being equal, inflation has meant that you are now earning 30k per year. So to meet your house payments it only requires approx. 16% of your income to meet your house payments. Governments will use this logic to reduce the burden of older debts, but in reality it's a never ending cycle.

        Another point is that without inflation there is less incentive for consumers to spend money, holding out in the hope that things will be cheaper at some future point. And an economy without consumer spending probably doesn't need expaining.

        Personally, why do we need inflation, well we probably don't, but that's why governments will always target inflation. You no doubt would understand all or most of this already, this is more a reply for others who might be pondering your question about why we need inflation.

        • This is true mate,and it is true that, long term, inflation will actually improve the average standard of living - provided of course that income keeps up with inflation. The irony with your example is that the Government don't include real estate in their inflation calculations - if they did it would be alot higher than what they report.

          At the moment inflation is a pie in the sky target as far as i'm concerned. The cost of living is going up but only as a result of increased costs in basic living expenses such as fuel, electricity, gas, water, and of course our burgeoning debt level. At the same time wages are, in real terms, going backwards. The upshot is that punters are spending less on discretionary spending (retail, restaurants, cars, holidays, tv's etc) and in the current climate their mindset has turned to "battening down the hatches". Car sales, retail sales etc have dropped off a cliff and alot of what was formerly being spent on a new SUV or big screen tele is now being directed to paying down debt. ALOT of middle class big-city families are getting nervous about their net worth - negative equity territory is a very real prospect.

          There's little to no confidence out there mate. I reckon the next couple of years are going to be very interesting times for everyone. I personally still very much see an economic melt down and a housing bust in our foreseeable future.... THen again I see an Eels premiership in the near future so what would I know :)))

This reply was deleted.

Latest comments

LB replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion R360 delayed 2 years
"Why they put the clause in was so he didn't leave for a year then want back in with say the Roosters or someone like that. In this case he sees out his deal and can't play elsewhere unless we say so. If he does come back for 2026 it's either here or…"
12 minutes ago
Eli Stephens replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion R360 delayed 2 years
"I don't think he wants to play nrl anymore, seems interested in other things. "
25 minutes ago
KENDOZA replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion R360 delayed 2 years
"Lol"
1 hour ago
Randy Handlinger replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion R360 delayed 2 years
" R540?"
1 hour ago
Randy Handlinger replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion R360 delayed 2 years
"I think I am going to call this version of you 101 and whatever the fuck the other guy is 102"
1 hour ago
Parra Dice replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion R360 delayed 2 years
"So R360 have done a 180?"
1 hour ago
Randy Handlinger replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion R360 delayed 2 years
"Yup HKF, and the agents would hate it even more, reinforcing that "bad light"
If he wants to return to the NRL I think the best we can hope for is a players swap
I am sure Margo Kneel will find a way to fuck it up though"
1 hour ago
Parrafan101 replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion R360 delayed 2 years
"He'll come back too parra, why would they put the clause in. The put it in incase he wants to comeback hence why we haven't bought fuck all outside backs and haven't made a signings. He will be in eels gear in feb."
1 hour ago
HKF replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion R360 delayed 2 years
"I think the storm were happy to accommodate paps with his release as they had a younger player ready to take over."
1 hour ago
HKF replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion R360 delayed 2 years
"The problem with taking such a strong stance is other players would look at the club in bad light and see the eels as an unfavourable destination. 
You can guarantee the players as a whole will support the return of lomax and paps."
2 hours ago
Eli Stephens replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion R360 delayed 2 years
"Paps is free to sign wherever he likes, Eels made sure to put a clause in because Lomax still had 3 years left on his deal. I don't think he'll be coming back to the nrl he can go do mma or fighting or whatever he wants to do lol "
2 hours ago
HKF replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion R360 delayed 2 years
"It's a tricky situation for ryles and the club, if lomax does want to come back to the NRL and not pursue other options do the eels,
1. Take him back, which would have an element of risk as he might look to get out again in the near future, he has…"
2 hours ago
SuperEel 22 replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion R360 delayed 2 years
"The really dumb thing here from Paps and Lomax, is that they have no leverage. Their contract value isn't on the cap, so neither Melbourne or Parra have any incentive to allow them to play for another club. Every other player that agitates for a…"
2 hours ago
SuperEel 22 replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion R360 delayed 2 years
"Wow, who could have seen this coming"
2 hours ago
Randy Handlinger replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion R360 delayed 2 years
"Saudi's being sketchy... I'm flabbergasted, totally kashoggied
Mohammad Bone Saw would like a word with you"
3 hours ago
Randy Handlinger replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion R360 delayed 2 years
"He would never have spoken to Paps... it's a smear campaign...a nasty pap smear job"
3 hours ago
More…

 

<script src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
<!-- Sidebar -->
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<script>// <![CDATA[
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
// ]]></script>