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

Parraborn1 replied to Johnny Suede's discussion What player each NRL club would need to cough-up to snare Lomax
"I'd argue that nobody wants Lomax except for Melbourne who are desperate for short-term acquisitions. "
30 minutes ago
iamnot replied to EelsAgeMe's discussion The Lomax Case: What Are We Missing?
"that's on Lomax, his agent and his legal team, not Parramatta. If R360 made promises to him they couldn't fulfil, its on Lomax to take R360 to court. "
57 minutes ago
Randy Handlinger replied to EelsAgeMe's discussion The Lomax Case: What Are We Missing?
"If you lost Joliffe would you replace him with Matto?....it's like replacing your car with a banana"
58 minutes ago
iamnot replied to EelsAgeMe's discussion The Lomax Case: What Are We Missing?
"R360 didn't exist at all when Lomax requested, and obtained, the release. It still doesn't. Lomax never had a contract there, as neither did any other player, including RTS. So, Lomax doesn't have an argument that his circumstances have changed. And…"
1 hour ago
iamnot replied to EelsAgeMe's discussion The Lomax Case: What Are We Missing?
"Absolutely Melbourne have been cooking this up for months, no doubt in breach of anti-tampering laws. But the NRL don't want to go digging there again. "
1 hour ago
iamnot replied to EelsAgeMe's discussion The Lomax Case: What Are We Missing?
"Exactly. And the court cannot rule on what would be considered 'fair value'. That is purely up to Parramatta to decide. "
1 hour ago
LB replied to EelsAgeMe's discussion The Lomax Case: What Are We Missing?
"Probably believed he was worth more is more likely right. However that is on him. He could have went to Parramatta and said "Hey, since i have signed with you i have played Origin 2 years in a row and toured for Australia, could we look into an…"
1 hour ago
DYNASTY.LOADING replied to EelsAgeMe's discussion The Lomax Case: What Are We Missing?
"We did the opposite of restrain his trade, we encouraged and facilitated his trade. However, this is not about winning or losing of Lomax plays NRL again in the next 3 seasons. This is about us receiving something in return for his services. Under…"
1 hour ago
LB replied to EelsAgeMe's discussion The Lomax Case: What Are We Missing?
"Lol Lomax cried to the NRL, Melbourne did also. Never been told no in a long time. Gallop did once and got abused by many in the game for doing the right thing. "
1 hour ago
LB replied to EelsAgeMe's discussion The Lomax Case: What Are We Missing?
"I doubt it as outside the NRL would include SL even. Union, AFL, UFC, Boxing, Golf even. If R360 didn't eventuate there is an ample amount of opportunities still there."
1 hour ago
Coryn Hughes replied to EelsAgeMe's discussion The Lomax Case: What Are We Missing?
"In all essence this case is very black n white but Lomax's lawyers will be looking for avenues that will highlight different that's the key here is for us not to get drawn into the Lomax arguement but to stay on track and highlight what's been…"
5 hours ago
Clintorian replied to EelsAgeMe's discussion The Lomax Case: What Are We Missing?
"Not to mention all the other teams in Rugby he could be playing in."
9 hours ago
Muttman replied to EelsAgeMe's discussion The Lomax Case: What Are We Missing?
"It's now out of the NRL's hands. If the court says the conditions of the release are valid and still stand then that is that. The NRL can't stomp all over the Eels' legal rights.  Lomax told the Eels in writing he was proceeding with the Storm…"
11 hours ago
EelsAgeMe replied to EelsAgeMe's discussion The Lomax Case: What Are We Missing?
"You'd think it's in the NRL's best interest to be on Parra's side here. If they take the side of Lomax then every player contract means nothing. This is bigger than a single case- it could open up a world where players do whatever they want,…"
12 hours ago
Eelovution replied to EelsAgeMe's discussion The Lomax Case: What Are We Missing?
"When the announcement was made by the Eels regarding the dispute with Lomax, the club made a very important note in their commentary- the agreement was made in 'Good Faith'. This is a very important principle in legal agreements- both parties agree…"
13 hours ago
RB replied to EelsAgeMe's discussion The Lomax Case: What Are We Missing?
"Yeah, but does that count if the opportunity never eventuated, is what I think they'll argue"
13 hours ago
More…

Keaon done deal

As of Thursday, December 11, 2025, South Sydney Rabbitohs forwardKeaon Koloamatangi has reportedly agreed to a deal with the Parramatta Eels, but it is not yet officially announced by the clubs.  Soon to be announced.

Read more…
14 Replies · Reply by Poppa Jan 9
Views: 1973

ANY MORE SIGNINGS???

I've been frustrated recently about the work we have been doing in the open market. Jonah's alright for a year and JDB is solid but he's getting old. I feel we need more in the forwards and some a replacement outside back. All I have seen is links…

Read more…
0 Replies
Views: 269

 

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