interest rates (1 Viewer)

[Lorie]

come on, Howard can't be serious about this whole interest rates scare tactics. All he does is keep carrying on about how inflationary a labour governament is. Yet he introduced a pro-cylical budget and has promissed a heap of spending. Hmmmmmmm, that leads to inflation which leads to higher interest rates.................. wow, isn't that ironic.

 

[Ziff]

Howard and Interest Rates scare tactic is total BS.

Anyway, I've been keeping a log of articles on this forum in one of the threads in the News and Current Affairs forums about interest rates and the Howard gov't. No economist agrees with the political spin.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1208242.htm is just another link. So is (my thead about Interest Rates and Economists) http://www.boredofstudies.org/community/showthread.php?t=40401 as a good source.

 

[Rorix]

does this thread have a point or is it just a private musing?

 

[Lorie]

justing wondering about everyones thoughts about it

 

[Rorix]

Guys, the truth is this.

Economic growth is going great. Since 91.
Employment has been going up.
Unemployment is low.
Interest rates are lower than ever.
Inflation is right in the middle of the target.
Government debt has been largely paid off.

Now, do you want a proven economic performer, or do you want a relative unknown who has a bit of a shady history representing a party which was in power during the recession we had to have?




Edit: Yes, I think the interest rates thing is BS too. But that's for all the morons out there who can't understand any economic concept beyond how much their mortgage repayments are.

 

[Lorie]

well the CAD is over 6% of GDP.

But don't forget that the liberal govt gave Hawk such a bad economy in the 80's.

 

[Ziff]

does this thread have a point or is it just a private musing?

I've already created a thread full of articles that refute Howard's assertion that interest rates will increase under a Labor government.

I don't think a Latham government would cause interest rates to increase. In light of state Labor governments being able to control their budgets effectively, I think that it's possible for Latham to do the same.

What worries me (at least from a Sydney, NSW perspective) is that the health, education and transport problems which have occurred under the Carr and Howard governments will continue or get worse under a possible Latham/Carr or Latham/Brogden government all in the name of poorly considered privatisation or poorly considered economic rationalism...

(And yes, I know that privatisation has worked very well in regards to the Sydney Light Rail system AND the Melbourne Rail System)

 

[Lorie]

Still how can Howard put his campaign soley on this myth about interest rates

 

[Rorix]

well the CAD is over 6% of GDP.

But don't forget that the liberal govt gave Hawk such a bad economy in the 80's.

Reflecting private sector investment, allowing a higher rate of growth than would otherwise be possible, it's due to cyclical factors, etc. etc.

Yeah, in 1983.

Relevant!

Globalisation changed everything.

Oh, there's other stuff I forgot to mention earlier like productivy increases and everything. shrug.

Still how can Howard put his campaign soley on this myth about interest rates

It's also based on 'Latham is an idiot who can't be trusted to protect Australia and get on well with George W Bush'.

As opposed to 'Howard will kill Medicare and you'll just end up dying from disease oh did i mention he's going to leave and COSTELLO will come in look I made this amusing poster..ohwait this is the one from 2001, this is the new one'

Personally, I think they should have gone the union scare. That would be great.

 

[Ziff]

Guys, the truth is this.

Economic growth is going great. Since 91.
Employment has been going up.
Unemployment is low.
Interest rates are lower than ever.
Inflation is right in the middle of the target.
Government debt has been largely paid off.

Now, do you want a proven economic performer, or do you want a relative unknown who has a bit of a shady history representing a party which was in power during the recession we had to have?




Edit: Yes, I think the interest rates thing is BS too. But that's for all the morons out there who can't understand any economic concept beyond how much their mortgage repayments are.

Dude, a lot of economists point to those as being a flow on from the economic reforms of the Labor Hawke/Keating governments. The thing is, that the Liberals are economic MANAGERS whilst Labor are economic REFORMERS.

A lot argue that whilst economic reforms are needed, that economic reforms and economic management don't go hand in hand at all. So you'll end up with a few years of turmoil and reform, then a few more of stability and management before things go tits up again and reform is needed. It's a hard choice, but I don't think the two can be reconcilled.

 

[Rorix]

Dude, a lot of economists point to those as being a flow on from the economic reforms of the Labor Hawke/Keating governments.

Yeah, nothing has happened since 1996 that could have affected the economy . The only real relevant economic reform off the top of my head is the slight movement away from centralised wage fixing in the later Accords. Feel free to supplement the list.

The thing is, that the Liberals are economic MANAGERS whilst Labor are economic REFORMERS.

Workplace Relations Act. GST. etc.

So you'll end up with a few years of turmoil and reform, then a few more of stability and management before things go tits up again and reform is needed. It's a hard choice, but I don't think the two can be reconcilled.

When you say reform, you're just trying to put a bullshit positive spin on a recession. It's like saying sure we starved the animals and most of them suffered and died, but we've reformed the population so that only the fittest are left! And that's actually an accurate analogy. The rest of the paragraph is just random opinion, there is no evidence (that I've seen, feel free to provide) that we must fuck up the economy to change it.

 

[Ziff]

Yeah, nothing has happened since 1996 that could have affected the economy . The only real relevant economic reform off the top of my head is the slight movement away from centralised wage fixing in the later Accords. Feel free to supplement the list.




Workplace Relations Act. GST. etc.



When you say reform, you're just trying to put a bullshit positive spin on a recession. It's like saying sure we starved the animals and most of them suffered and died, but we've reformed the population so that only the fittest are left! And that's actually an accurate analogy. The rest of the paragraph is just random opinion, there is no evidence (that I've seen, feel free to provide) that we must fuck up the economy to change it.

I will remind you that Labor under Hawke/Keating implemented things such as:
HECS
National Competition Policy
Privatisation of National assets (Qantas) being one of them
and many more!

I know the Liberals have tried to privatise Telstra (I agree with the privatising of Telstra but not the infrastructure. Telstra monopolises the infrastructure, other companies are forced to rent lines from it, that is the only part I don't like...) etc etc

I'm just saying that you should be looking at the positives and negatives that both parties over the past 20 years or so have implemented rather than just focusing on the negatives of the ALP and the positives of the Liberals.

I admit that both parties have given us some positives and some negatives.

I still hold that the Liberals are adequate economic managers in a totalistic view. Overall, the Howard government has in terms of the economy, implemented measures that manage the economy. In terms of Workplace Relations I'd argue that by cutting out the Unions the Liberals have preserved the current economic standing - hence managed it. Whereas under Labor the Unions have somewhat more power (but Labor has been striving to limit that, but regardless e.g. the implementation of 50/50 represenation under Crean as opposed to the 60/40 previously - in union favour) the Unions often do push economic reforms. They are in the benefit of workers, initially, later on it does translate into benefits for the employers (argue that as you like).

I'm not trying to give spin to the recession, but I would say that it was part of a world wide trend (of prevailing economic policies at the time). Under Howard, however, we did manage to weather the Asian Tiger economy problem (1997/8). What buffered us, however, was very high interest rates - that we still have right now mind you. US, Canadian, European and Japanese interest rates v. ours are well not very balanced. For an explanation of it look here: http://www.cosepp.com/Y_FA05.htm#difference_aust_less_us_rate_SUPP.

After seeing how State Labor government manage their economies, I think that a Federal Labor government would be forced to manage their economies well. This would not only be becuase of the pressure from electorates, but also, because of pressure from State governments.

 

[Lorie]

It's also based on 'Latham is an idiot who can't be trusted to protect Australia and get on well with George W Bush'.

dude, i don't think Australia has been in a more dangerous state since world war 2.

Who cares if Latham gets along with George Bush or not, he's gonna get kicked out anyway.

 

[Lorie]

Yeah, in 1983.

Relevant!

Howards ads talk about Whitlam........1970-72......thats pretty relevant isn't it.

 

[ohne]

come on, Howard can't be serious about this whole interest rates scare tactics. All he does is keep carrying on about how inflationary a labour governament is. Yet he introduced a pro-cylical budget and has promissed a heap of spending. Hmmmmmmm, that leads to inflation which leads to higher interest rates.................. wow, isn't that ironic.

I have said this before and I will say it again. The threat on interest rates in NOT from a budget deficit but from Labor's INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS policy.

 

[Rorix]

stuff

I've got to get started on this assignment I need to finish so I can study but basically yeah, the ALP has implemented some good schemes most have which have been further developed under Howard (with new ones introduced), so to credit Australia's 13 years of growth soley to ALP reforms is misleading.

dude, i don't think Australia has been in a more dangerous state since world war 2.

Who cares if Latham gets along with George Bush or not, he's gonna get kicked out anyway.

Oh, really? Because, y'know, in America they have things called 'opinion polls' and pretty much all of them (all of them to my knowledge, but I might have missed a few) are giving Bush the required electoral college votes and the Kerry campeign is in a state of disarray constantly reinventing itself - but it's good to know Kerry's got a secret plan to turn it around that he's only informed you of. I guess if anyone else knew it wouldn't be a secret.

Howards ads talk about Whitlam........1970-72......thats pretty relevant isn't it.

I haven't seen the ads in question, but even if they do, so what? The point is 1983 is pretty much irrelevant to Howard's economic record, whereas 1991 still haunts the ALP. Speaking of Whitlam, that's a concerning aspect of the Latham campeign - he's seems to be everywhere, and a trusted mentor. A bit concerning considering he really fucked the economy.
(in before Asqy starts yelling something about Medicare)

I have said this before and I will say it again. The threat on interest rates in NOT from a budget deficit but from Labor's INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS policy.

You know you're doing something wrong when Asqy can successfully criticise you.

 

[rumour]

Interest rates are going to go up, due to the growing economy & the improving world economy. They have gone up 0.5% in the last year alone.


The economy has had growth for 13 years now, so the downswing should be coming along soon!!!!

 

[Rorix]

Interest rates are going to go up, due to the growing economy & the improving world economy.


The economy has had growth for 13 years now, so the downswing should be coming along soon!!!!

Sometimes I wonder.

 

[Lorie]

I have said this before and I will say it again. The threat on interest rates in NOT from a budget deficit but from Labor's INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS policy.

you idiot, do u even know how the RBA considers the interest rates.

 

[rumour]

Sometimes I wonder.

What ?