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

EA replied to EA's discussion EA & SB Rookie Report - End of Season SG/HM Player Review
"Sorovi is playing Sydney shield for Wenty. So that is the level below RM. He has scored 5 tries in 2 games. Hope he moves up to JF soon with Rokusuka as they both have more potential than Nelson and Tuala who are the current wingers "
43 minutes ago
LB replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"Pretty much was just saying they way you disliked BA there is no chance you would support their deciple staying."
1 hour ago
Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"No. - the way Gutherson used the media against the club in each negotiation.  That was the issue.   Remember when his management called the club imbeciles when he didn't get his money  fk them.  A captain calling his club imbeciles. Unbelievable…"
1 hour ago
KENDOZA replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"Did he fall out with arthur lb?"
3 hours ago
LB replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"Breaks my heart not seeing him at Parra coaching again. Wish he was at least coaching our NSW Cup team."
3 hours ago
LB replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"To be fair FMP, Chief was in favour in letting Gutho go early. Mainly due to his hatred of BA, he linked Gutho to that too and wanted all traces of BA gone. That is not me being smart allic either i am actually serious that is a reason he was in…"
3 hours ago
Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"also this guy should be at Parramatta.   A Parramatta man"
3 hours ago
Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"So now you're back tracking.  Let's just agree to disagree and get on with it"
3 hours ago
fake midget pseudoachondroplasia replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"Don't have time to go through all your wrong predictions, you delete blogs anyway when proven wrong like your recent blog about Sua being a bad signing at 28 years old.
Even if you didn't mention Gutho making them better I bet you compared Saints…"
3 hours ago
fake midget pseudoachondroplasia replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"Of course they wouldn't, but as soon as he has a good game for saints, it will be mentioned how the front office stuffed up signing him. "
3 hours ago
Coryn Hughes replied to Angry Eel's discussion Hypothetical Question
"The front office screwed it because they got caught cheating that was the bigger issue.Foran unfortunately his body was at the end of it by the time he got to us and the mental state hurt him also."
3 hours ago
Poupou Escobar replied to Angry Eel's discussion Hypothetical Question
"The front office didn't screw that, Kieran Foran did. Unless you're talking about the salary cap cheating, in which case, we wouldn't have signed all those players without it."
3 hours ago
Blue Eel replied to Angry Eel's discussion Hypothetical Question
"Throw in a Micheal Jennings, Hindmarsh,Vella and Dylan Brown. Yep."
4 hours ago
Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"I reckon they'll retire Gutherson and someone said they'll offer him something in coaching. "
4 hours ago
Michael W. replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"I wouldn't sign him for 1yr, he is way overrated, imo."
4 hours ago
EA replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"If dragons can fix their outside backs and get a good coach, I recon they will challenge for the 8 next year. Gutho and Holmes at centre is cooked. Atkinson and Metcalf in the halves with Reed and LKT still developing. Drinkwater at fullback. Liddle…"
4 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>