kokodamonkey
Active Member
intervention just means that rather than the most efficient outcome we get a humane outcome
Australia has one of the highest interest rates if not the highest out of all the advanced OECD economies.The central bank encourages debt and discourages savings by keeping the rate of interest artificially low. It keeps it artificially low by creating new money.
I am saying get rid of the central bank.
Actually I'm pretty sure that there are some pretty restrictive laws around the second part of that....'Planck' no one is stopping you and your rapture ready pals from buying a farm and a gun and holding out till 2012.
The cash rate in Australia is absurdly low compared to historical rates in Australia and everywhere else in the world. The fact that it is slightly higher than the even more outrageously low rates in some other countries does not make it in any way appropriate.Australia has one of the highest interest rates if not the highest out of all the advanced OECD economies.
What you said was just stupid, your presence insults me.
We are not claiming that markets (or the agents in them) are perfectly rational, merely that they will produce better outcomes the less they are regulated.Are you claiming such outcomes are pareto efficient..?
Mabye it's just your poor grasp of the english language, but your premise, and subsequent conclusion, seem unconnected. The 'market' either allocates resources most efficiently, or it does not.
Yes, 'intervention' disrupts the market process, but this is the precise aim of an intervention...to stop unfavorable market outcomes, granted, intervention can result in unfavorable unintended consequences, but that does not rule out the case for all interventions.
Do you think that people naturally take actions that expand the apex and nadir of cycles, or do you not,
Are you claiming speculative investment bubbles in financial markets have no endogenous component? Do you assert all agents, and thus the market on a whole is 'rational', if you do (and thus dismiss all empircal studies into the matter), atleast I can understand your ill-concieved position.
Haha actually if he buys a farm he gets subsidised gun licences and easier access to prohibited firearms etcActually I'm pretty sure that there are some pretty restrictive laws around the second part of that....
Also suggesting that a group who disagrees with you should effectively leave society does not address their argument in any meaningful way. And more importantly by refusing to debate an issue or even consider* a change to the status quo you are essentially embracing stagnation.
*as opposed to implement
So because someone has it worse than you means you have it great? If I beat some kid to death but I only make you a paraplegic, does that mean that you're fine? Because if it is, let me be the first to say "cheer the fuck up, it could be worse."Do some research.
Australia's debt to GDP ratio is the lowest in the OECD and is projected to peak at 14%. Compare this to Japan with 180%.
Btw I encourage you to find 5 countries on this earth who are not currently in deficit. As I have posted before in this thread, there is no 'silver bullet'.
Interest rates are predicted to rise next quarter.
In other words you are wrong, wrong, wrong!
That is all.
yes!!!So because someone has it worse than you means you have it great? If I beat some kid to death but I only make you a paraplegic, does that mean that you're fine? Because if it is, let me be the first to say "cheer the fuck up, it could be worse."
It has always been the role of the Liberal party to clear Australia out of Labor debt.
Australia was never going to be in as bad a shape as the rest of the world to begin with, but the fact that we missed a recession is actually due to Labour's stimulus whether you like it or not. Any economist will confirm that for you.yes!!!
by the way, why have we missed the brunt of the recession? and do not say labor.
No it hasn't. Liberal leaders of the past have racked up some pretty impressive debt themselves, while Labour leaders of the past have often been debt reducers (e.g. Hawke-Keating).It has always been the role of the Liberal party to clear Australia out of Labor debt.
Inflation and employment go hand in hand with respect to macro-economic policy, the constant fear of rapidly increasing unemployment began to override the importance of the typical inflationary target. Saying that our current interest rate is low in comparison to historical trends for Austalia is probably pretty spot on, however it was a natural response to the threat of the GFC. The main advantage monetary policy has over fiscal policy is that it can be adjusted far more frequently and so if and when it is too high or low it can be fixed much quicker than what fiscal policy could.The cash rate in Australia is absurdly low compared to historical rates in Australia and everywhere else in the world. The fact that it is slightly higher than the even more outrageously low rates in some other countries does not make it in any way appropriate.
Just take a look at the RBA's own data:
RBA: Cash Rate Target
The current rate of 3% is the lowest it has ever been.
Now compare this to the inflation rate, which by the RBA's own calculations is 1.5%. This gives us a real interest rate of just 1.5%.
Reserve Bank of Australia - Home Page
and that's if you believe the RBA, which has every incentive to underestimate inflation and uses flawed techniques that exclude key prices. With the real inflation rate, the real interest rate in Australia is likely to be close to 0, if not negative.
thankyou shodanAustralia was never going to be in as bad a shape as the rest of the world to begin with, but the fact that we missed a recession is actually due to Labour's stimulus whether you like it or not. Any economist will confirm that for you.
For a look at what our economy would be like had Labour not acted as they did, Canada is probably the closest example (their economy being so similar to ours, both in terms of government regulation, and market structure), where the Conservative government was slow to pass a stimulus package, and passed a half-arsed one when they were forced to by threat of no confidence.
The other significant reason is the Central Bank - the RBA was able to implement the single biggest economic stimulus, per capita, in the world by dropping interest rates 4.25%. This rate drop combined with stimulus payments was enough to completely counteract the drop in Australian incomes which has occurred so far. Something like this would not work in America, though, because most Americans have fixed rate mortgages (most Aussies have variable rate mortgages).
Ok lol, I mistakenly assumed you would know what the "real interest rate" means. It seems I gave you too much credit.Inflation and employment go hand in hand with respect to macro-economic policy, the constant fear of rapidly increasing unemployment began to override the importance of the typical inflationary target. Saying that our current interest rate is low in comparison to historical trends for Austalia is probably pretty spot on, however it was a natural response to the threat of the GFC. The main advantage monetary policy has over fiscal policy is that it can be adjusted far more frequently and so if and when it is too high or low it can be fixed much quicker than what fiscal policy could.
And don't be stupid, if the RBA says the official cash rate is 3%, then that's what it is, they arn't going to lie about the nominal or real rate. I can tell you one thing, the real rate certainly isn't close to 0 and definately isn't negative, not that it matters since the rates will be going up soon anyway.
Oh and why would the RBA "underestimate inflation" when it's already below its target.
No it hasn't. Liberal leaders of the past have racked up some pretty impressive debt themselves, while Labour leaders of the past have often been debt reducers (e.g. Hawke-Keating).
How about you take your own advice. You'll get a little surprise.lololololololol you obviously have no idea of the history of Australia's economy...
may i suggest Google enjoy