ralph <rsteadman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:52:25 +1000, "Steel Golem"
> <sliver_steel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Considering that the election was held on 24 November 2007 care to
>> explain how an interest rate rise on 12 November can be "directly
>> attributable to KRudd!"?
>>
>
> This one is debatable of course, but as all the polls were showing a
> clear Labor victory less than 3 weeks out from the election ... why
> would you expect the RBA not to consider that likely event in the
> November meeting?
>
> In which case, as well as tax cuts promised by both parties, they also
> knew the writing was on the wall for rolling back IR reform and
> restoring some union powers ... meaning further inflationary growth in
> wages (ie, not linked to any productivity increase).
>
> If you were the RBA and looking forward at where inflation was headed
> from November onward, and given the likely victory by Kevin, it would
> have been a grim picture. What else could they do and why did they
> do it?
>
> When the RBA was telling us we have an inflation problem, it was
> shortsighted that both parties offered voters outright tax cuts to buy
> the election. But ALSO promising to roll back the Libs IR reforms,
> despite wages already keeping pace under them, is simply madness.
>
> Blame who you like for rate hikes ... the real question is what are
> the policies of THIS government today, and how will they affect our
> economy and living standards. The symbolism of the apology, the
> bizarre Canberra wank-fest for intellectuals, and our less-than-honest
> signing of Kyoto may impress the chardonnay sippers ... but for
> anyone more concerned with substance than style, and specifically
> about maintaining living standards for Australians, you'd have to
> agree it's not been an impressive start for this Labor government.
Or you could have enough of a clue to realise that
increased interest rates arent necessarily a bad thing.
|
