Political Futures: Will Conservative Global Middle Powers Go…

By Denis Bright National elections in Germany and Australia in 2025 will test…

Does the Treasurer have a god complex or…

By Dale Webster THE Senate inquiry into regional bank closures, which delivered its…

Educating Australian Voters for True Democracy

By Denis Hay Description Explore how educating Australian voters can reform the two-party system…

Zionism, Imperialism and conflict in the Middle East

As we are constantly bombarded by the ongoing conflict in Gaza and…

Sado-populism

Every time a fascist-flirting regime is defeated in an election, more column…

A nation on the move: New tool tracks…

Media Release: The Climate Council Millions of Australian homes and businesses are driving…

Thank You for Emitting: The Hypocrisies of COP29

COP29 was always going to be memorable, for no other reason than…

ALP vs LNP: Similarities, Differences

By Denis Hay Title ALP vs LNP: Similarities, Differences, and Policy Impacts on…

«
»
Facebook

Tag Archives: Interest rates

Phil Lowe Builds A Cubby House!

Some of you may remember a photo of Scott Morrison building a cubby house for his teenage daughters. While most of the social media comments centred on how they were too big for a cubby, followed by people attacking them for body shaming, followed by people explaining that the “too big” comments were about age, following by abusive comments, one person – who clearly was a bit of a handyman – pointed out that most absurd thing about the photo was that Morrison was holding a hammer while the cubby was being put together with screws.

I was reminded of this photo by the RBA decision to lift interest rates yet again. Phil Lowe, it seems to me, is using a hammer to belt in the screws and when anyone points out that a screwdriver would be better, the response is that a hammer is the only tool that he has.

Of course, this is an interesting way of looking at things. There are all sorts of decisions which can be justified with this simple logic. For example, “I didn’t do the dishes because I didn’t have any detergent so instead I let the dog lick them clean” or “We don’t have any anaesthetic, we’re just going to knock you unconscious with this brick”.

Now I do know that Phil the Inflation-slayer is pretty single-minded when it comes to getting things in the 2-3% target range. I mean we all understand that it would be the end of civilisation as we know it if the figure didn’t come down before September when Mr Lowe is looking more and more likely to be without a job. However, I’m yet to hear an explanation for why this figure is so much more important than an unemployment rate of under five percent or why we need to cause a recession in order to take it down so quickly. Would it really destroy the economy if it were, say 3.83% next year? And when I say destroy the economy, I mean would it lead to things like mass unemployment and slow growth and… You know – all those things that seem preferable to an inflation rate outside the Reserve Bank’s target range.

While I lack the economic expertise of economists who manage to accurately predict what the Reserve Bank will do each month on at least two or three occasions out of fourteen (to be fair, it IS a lot harder now they’ve stopped leaving them on hold every month!), it seems to me that we have a number of factors driving inflation:

  1. A problem with supply chains due to Covid, floods and associated problems. Interest rate rises may send some firms with loans out of business, exacerbating supply problems. I think we can all agree that rising interest rates will not fix these problems, although a hammer might be useful if that’s the tool that you haven’t been able to access due to a breakdown in the supply chain.
  2. Energy prices. Apart from the war in Ukraine, the lack of replacement for some of the aging coal-fired power stations which are being shut down before they break down is causing some spikes and this is another problem that will only be partially solved by rising interest rates. Once more of us are homeless and having to move in with others, houses will be so crowded that we’ll all be toasty warm, just from the human bodies all crowded into the same bed… Although this may be a problem in summer.
  3. Petrol prices. Some minimal relief when people lose their job and don’t have to travel to work, although this probably won’t be enough to bring inflation into that magic number of 2-3%.
  4. Housing supply. Of course, if interest rates go up, less people can afford to build and developers are less inclined to build new houses. This worsens the housing supply rather than improves it.

And, just to be fair, I did hear Michaelia Cash on the radio a couple of days ago telling us that it was important to get real wages moving but not at a rate faster than inflation because if you did that, you’d just get more inflation and Tony Burke is insulting employers by suggesting that some of them use labour-hire companies to pay people less and Labor’s proposal of equal pay would push up inflation because they’d have to pay people the same rate. Or something like that. I find it very hard to understand what she’s saying a lot of the time. Something to do with pitch and the human ear.

Like I said, I’m no economist. So if you can get a professional to explain the flaws in my logic, they’d be most welcome to write me a simple thesis on how this can all be blamed on a refusal to accept whatever economic theory they’ve been espousing for years. And when I say “a refusal to accept”, I don’t mean by governments. No, it’s often that reality stubbornly refuses to accept the wisdom of excellent economic theory.

Even if the Reserve Bank is using a hammer, the fact is that it’s really only those with mortgages and loans that are being screwed.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Budget emergency or a gambler in trouble?

During those first few weeks after the election, as over half a nation sat there in shock contemplating what had just happened, presumably flushed with joy at having the keys to the safe, Joe Hockey made the astonishing decision to borrow $8.8 billion to give to the Reserve Bank.

Hockey tried to sell this as crucial to our economy in giving the Reserve Bank a buffer zone to address future crises. What a load of hooey.

The RBA deputy governor, Philip Lowe, ‘said the level of the bank’s capital reserves had not been keeping him awake at night’. The board had wanted to rebuild the capital level over time but the government wanted to do it immediately.

In a speech at a Sydney investment conference in October, Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens backed up comments by the RBA deputy governor that the bank was happy to rebuild its capital reserves over time. The RBA certainly didn’t ask for Hockey’s $8.8 billion capital injection and didn’t think it was necessary.

At the current five-year commonwealth bond yield of nearly 3.4 per cent, the borrowed $8.8 billion will cost taxpayers about $300 million a year.

There were two reasons that Hockey did this and they have nothing to do with stability.

Hockey is making a shrewd political gamble. Any near-term budget deficit – made worse initially by the $300 million in interest accruing on these borrowed funds – will be blamed on the former Government’s proflicacy as perceived economic mis-management. It added a great deal to the deficit over the forward estimates which Hockey then blamed on the previous government. Approximately $68 billion of the deterioration in the deficit between PEFO and MYEFO is due to policy decisions made by the Coalition.

Secondly, this was a blatant gamble in the hope the Aussie dollar would go down. Then as the Australian dollar falls, and dividends from the RBA reserve fund flow to the Government, Hockey will be better placed to show improvement in the budget bottom-line and claim himself as a fiscal super hero. The last time the Aussie had a sharp fall, the RBA paid the government a dividend of more than $5 billion. Trader Joe is playing the forex market with borrowed money hoping for a windfall just before the next election.

Fairfax’s Michael Pascoe suggested that perhaps Hockey was acting on “in-house advice from the former head of foreign exchange and global finance at Deutsche Bank, Melissa Babbage. Hockey is Ms Babbage’s husband.”

Unfortunately, that gamble isn’t going so well so far as the dollar remains persistently high.

The Reserve Bank of Australia’s move to a “neutral bias” on monetary policy has angered the Abbott government, which believes any upward pressure on the dollar will make it harder to manage the economy and Treasurer Joe Hockey’s displeasure was made known to the RBA directly.

The government has become uncomfortable with the Australian dollar’s upward move since the RBA dropped its explicit easing bias, paving the way for the currency to rise on the expectation that the central bank’s next move will be up.

RBA Board member, Dr John Edwards, responded by saying Australia was in the grip of a “bountiful” mining and energy export-driven revenue surge.

“It’s very difficult to expect rhetoric to have an impact on economic forces which are running in the opposite direction. If you’ve got a mood going on in the currency, then rhetoric alone is not going change it. The currency argument is that a fall in the terms of trade should see lower exports and therefore less demand for the Australian dollar. It’s not working out like that. In fact US dollar revenues have increased [for local mining companies]. And the balance of trade has for several months been positive, once again. And that means, in terms of what happens in foreign exchange markets, you wouldn’t necessarily expect to see a weaker dollar if it’s associated with, effectively, a boom in exports.”

An article called Swaggering unarmed in the global currency war in Macrobusiness suggests that the dollar has turned for a number of reasons. The US recovery has again disappointed, pushing back rate hike expectations. China has hit the stimulus accelerator again (albeit mildly), the EU is clearly in the process of entering the money printing race as deflation looms, and Japan’s Abenomics burst is slowing and requires more money printing to get going again.

In short, we’re traversing an echo period of competitive monetary devaluation in which the US dollar is held down, commodity-intensive emerging markets are seen as the growth driver and real assets are seen as value protection. This is putting upwards pressure on all of the commodity currencies, and gold, not just the Australian dollar. We aren’t losing competitiveness against commodity competitors, for the most part. It’s against the manufacturing and service economies that we’re losing production.

Even before the Reserve Bank indicated it was disinclined to cut rates again, and more likely to keep them steady, the Aussie dollar had begun to climb.

Despite pointed references by Reserve officials about an “uncomfortably high” dollar, financial markets continued on their merry way, pushing the dollar higher. Regardless of the Reserve’s rhetoric, currency buyers continued to prefer to buy Aussie dollars and pay a higher price for them.

That’s not surprising when you remember that the return on many currencies around the world is exactly zero.

The Reserve Bank’s current assessment is that, with signs emerging that the economy is strengthening, the argument to reduce interest rates again from already record lows is weak.

The RBA indicated in February that it had finished its easing cycle, supported by strong inflation readings and finally a rebound in jobs growth. Most economists now expect rates will be on hold at 2.5 per cent – a record low – until at least later this year. The RBA is not just battling with the impact of an Australian dollar trading above fair value. It is concerned with trying to keep house prices under control and ward off an asset bubble fuelled by low interest rates.

When it began slashing interest rates two and half years ago, the RBA explicitly targeted a housing boom. Now it has a growing bubble on its hands and hence interest rate markets are pricing interest rate rises in the next twelve months, long before the real economy is ready for them given the long unwind ahead in mining investment. That has global hot money flows pursuing the carry trade into the Australian dollar as the interest rate spread has climbed a long way off last year’s lows.

Some suggest that the RBA should have introduced macroprudential tools, which would have insured that housing credit was controlled in this recovery cycle and interest rates could be another 50-100 bps lower. The recovery we should have had is in tradables with support from housing construction, not the other way around.

It could still be done and would have an effect. But the risk now is that it would work too well and cause a housing bust, just as we head off the mining capex cliff.

Likewise, Joe Hockey need not wait for the RBA. If Hockey really wants to push the Reserve back to cut interest rates and lower the exchange rate, he could trash the economy with irresponsible policy making. He could slash and burn in the Budget and force interest rates and the dollar lower.

Or he could shift negative gearing to new dwellings only. That would stall house prices and offer the opportunity for rate cuts to close the carry trade spread. He could install Tobin taxes on hot money inflows, a tax on all spot conversions of one currency into another to put a penalty on short-term financial round-trip excursions into another currency, which would help take the edge off and raise extra revenue.

As we have seen with the Coalition, they can find money for things they want – Operation Sovereign Borders, fighter jets, paid parental leave, roads, bribes to polluters, Tim Wilson, private jet travel for politicians, businessmen and journalists, tax concessions for the wealthy – so it is hard to buy the ‘need for austerity’ line. I think Hockey is sweating bullets because his gamble isn’t working out so well and he desperately needs to do something to make the dollar go lower.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

It’s official: Joe Hockey has lost the plot!

With the announcement that the Reserve Bank is tipped to cut rates today, Joe Hockey has pounced:

Mr Hockey says the expected cut shows Labor has lost control of the economy.

But, he adds:

“Of course interest rates on average should be lower but if interest rates come down today it is because the economy is struggling, not because it’s doing well,” he told ABC radio on Tuesday morning.

Is it just me, or does the above statement make absolutely no sense or offer no logic whatsoever? Have I missed something? Or has Joe Hockey finally made it publicly clear that he has well and truly lost the plot?

I suspected all along that he lost the plot eons ago. His history of erratic announcements on interest rates confirm this. And no matter what happens to interest rates today, he will see it as a result of bad government.

Last January I published Wiping the egg off Joe Hockey’s face where I showed he is all over the shop when it comes to talking about – or knowing about – interest rates. Given his latest gaffe it is fitting that I reprint the article (and the rantings of this laughable man) below. He has history.

Enjoy!

The Prime Minister’s early announcement that the election will be held on September 14 relegates the recent Liberal Party’s ‘Our Plan: Real Solutions for all Australians’ to the waste paper basket. It probably belonged there anyway; offering nothing but statements and bereft of strategies. They’ll be busy coming up with something more substantial over the coming weeks, one would expect.

I also expect they will retain this commitment from the Plan:

The Coalition will protect the Australian economy from economic shocks and create the conditions which keep interest rates as low as possible . . .

I wonder if Joe Hockey knows about this. Was he even consulted? Is the party aware that Joe has been telling us for some time now that interest rate cuts are a bad, bad thing?

Or maybe Joe was consulted about the Plan a couple of years ago when he trumpeted that interest rate cuts were a good thing.

After all, in August 2010 he told us he wanted them to come down:

. . . what I did say is I would want to see the Reserve Bank move further in cutting interest rates.

Then in September 2010 the thought of rising interest rates made him livid and it was all the Government’s fault:

The Gillard Government must accept the blame for higher interest rates.

History tells us that the rates were put on hold that month, incidentally. But Joe was livid nonetheless.

In November 2010 after a rate rise he was still livid:

Australian families were the victims of a government who was no longer talking about interest rate rises, childcare costs and other costs of living, Mr Hockey said.

Families would struggle to buy Christmas presents, he said.

“It hasn’t been the usual practice of the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates in December because that is like a body blow to the heart of retail in Australia.

“But that body blow has been delivered, it’s been delivered by the Reserve Bank, by the banks and it’s all come about by this government.”

Fast forward to his 2011 Budget Reply Speech a more relaxed Mr Hockey told Parliament that:

. . . this Budget does nothing to reduce the upward pressure on interest rates.

Funnily, however, there were no rate rises in 2011 up to the day of his reply. But he was about to get livid again.

On Oct 1 2011 in anticipation of an increase he pointed the fickle finger of blame at the Government:

Of course the Reserve Bank should not be increasing interest rates tomorrow, but if they do then it will be Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan’s interest rate increase because they have done nothing to address core underlying inflation pressures.

Guess what? They never went up. Nothing to blame the Government for after all. Good try though.

Like all hard working Australians he announced on Jan 27 2012 he wanted the RBA to cut rates:

“I think the Reserve Bank has the capacity to do much of the initial heavy lifting and to stimulate economic growth by reducing interest rates.”

And he alone could save us when on March 27 2012 he proudly announced that:

He would work though on realising lower interest rates that would prop up the finances of many Australian households.

But . . . when they did come down, on May 11 2012 he was back to his livid self:

. . . shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said the rate cut was a sign that the Government had lost control of the economy.

Yet he left us dumfounded on June 4 2012:

Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey has conceded Australia’s economy is in reasonable shape and endorsed Wayne Swan’s commitment to returning the budget to surplus.

Speaking to an international audience on Bloomberg TV, Mr Hockey said Australia was vulnerable “like everyone else”, but its economic fundamentals were strong.

“Australia is in a better position than most other western nations,” he told Bloomberg’s Asia Edge program.

“We have an unemployment rate of around 5 per cent, we have strong demand for our commodities and even though they probably won’t get there we have a government that at least is promising to deliver a surplus budget.”

[yet] When the Reserve Bank lowered interest rates by 50 basis points last month, Mr Hockey said it confirmed the “weakness in the Australian economy”. In his budget reply he said economic growth under Labor had been “very poor”.

The very next day, after a rate cut he sniggered to the adoring media that:

The Reserve makes clear it is worried about Australia’s underperforming economy and deteriorating international conditions.

But before the month was over they were apparently going up according to Mr Hockey:

Well you know what’s interesting . . . we’ve been saying this for three years now, that if the government actually delivers a surplus then it’s going to take upward pressure off interest rates.

Which is good, because it fits in with his Nov 2010 prediction:

Australia is set for high interest rates.

And also in November that year after an increase he declared:

. . . the Gillard government and its ”insipidly weak Treasurer” owned the interest rate rises.

And when we didn’t get a cut he laments in June 2012 that:

“A week ago Australians were expecting an interest rate cut – now they are facing interest rises. That undermines consumer confidence, it undermines business confidence and it leaves Australians fighting higher prices.”

But when the rates went down on Oct 2 2012 it was back to the Government’s fault again:

The Reserve Bank has cut interest rates today not because the economy is doing well, but because parts of the economy are doing it tough.

And on Oct 10 last year he took on a dire tone:

Last week’s reduction in the cash rate, to 3.25 per cent, took it to levels only one cut away from the lows reached during the financial crisis. The Reserve Bank are cutting interest rates not because the Australian economy is doing well but because the Australian economy is deteriorating.

But also in October 2012 we learn he wished for an interest rate cut and his wish was rewarded. And he was happy:

Last Tuesday, at the Elmore Field Days, he called on the Reserve Bank to drop interest rates.

And lo and behold, an hour or so later, that’s just what the bank did.

So chuffed was Big Joe, he grabbed a tractor and raised it above his head, roaring King Kong style.

OK, it’s a toy tractor.

And when they don’t go down we get this statement on Nov 6 2012 to blame the Government for them being put on hold:

Joe Hockey claims the Reserve Bank did not reduce the cash rate because the economy is overheating:

‘This shows it is now manifestly clear that it is the policies of this government which are pushing up the cost of living and staying the Reserve’s hand in delivering further interest rate relief to home buyers and small businesses.’

Again in November last year:

. . . the carbon tax is going to make it harder to cut interest rates.

But he doesn’t like them being cut. Remember? It means the country’s in a mess and it’s all Labor’s fault.

Such as it was with this announcement on Dec 4 2012:

The Reserve Bank has today cut the cash rate from 3.25% to 3%. Clearly the Reserve Bank is trying to catch a falling Australian economy . . .

Followed by this the very next day:

The Federal Opposition says the RBA rate cut foreshadows tough times ahead for the Australian economy.

Coalition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey says the move shows the RBA is intervening to counter Labor’s big spending policies like the promised Gonski education reforms and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

But he’s not alone. When joined by his boss in June last year:

Alas, Hockey was (inexplicably) joined at that press conference by Abbott, which reduced the average economic IQ of the room by 20 points. Abbott proceeded to lay out his understanding of the rate cut. Abbott thought the RBA had cut rates because “economic conditions are soft. The stock market is down. Profits are weak. Retail sales are weak. The property market is down.” Glenn Stevens’ statement that the bank had cut rates because of “modest” domestic growth, a weakening international environment and low inflation was politely ignored.

Yep, it’s all the Government’s fault. It’s only good if cuts come under a Coalition Government. To repeat the old Liberal meme, here’s what Joe had to say back on Aug 9 2010:

Mr Hockey also argued “interest rates are always lower” under the Coalition – an argument described by Mr Swan as one of the “bigger distortions” he’s heard in recent times.

Laughable, isn’t it?

I like what Leigh Sales asked him on the 7:30 Report on Nov 1 2011:

So, how come when interest rates go down the Government never gets credit, but when they go up it’s always the Government’s fault?

Follow the link if you want to see his answer, but don’t expect anything intelligent. You won’t find it.

If Joe Hockey keeps this up then between now and the election someone will be wiping a lot of egg off his face.

Maybe they should find a way to shut him up. Or maybe they could get rid of him. This economic buffoon could be our next Treasurer.

Frightening, isn’t it?

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button