The Greens

[Johnny Bananas]

When we have high inflation and high housing prices then yes. We need high interest rates.

Can you please tell me how higher interest rates reduce cost-push inflation? I understand how they reduce demand-pull inflation, but not cost-push.

Can you also please tell me how much I can expect high interest rates to bring down the cost of houses by? Or are there perhaps other, more effective ways to manage that, like adding a massive amount of housing supply and reducing incentives for property investment to lower demand?

The greens say we need lower interest rates to improve housing affordability.

Where did they say this? I've only seen them say lower interest rates will provided cost of living relief for struggling mortgage holders. When it comes to housing affordability I've seen them call for fiscal policy solutions (such as investment in public housing and an end to negative gearing on properties) rather than monetary policy.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

What a BS response. The Greens are trying to blackmail the Treasurer into using a power that has never, EVER been used in Australia.

So what? If it exists, it can be used. They're within their rights to ask for the government to use powers that they have.

The political grandstanding continues. It's either good legislation, or it isn't. The Greens need to stop with this "we'll support x, if you do y" garbage, when y has nothing to do with x.

Funny, when people were condemning the Greens for not immediately expressing their enthusiastic support for Labor's emissions targets a few years ago, I remember those people saying "pass the bill now, then when Labor need a favour in future, ask them to increase the emissions target in return". Now I see someone suggesting the conplete opposite.

This view seems to me like it's demanding the utter supremacy of the two major parties, letting them set the agenda and not allowing any sort of negotiation. Albo's way or the highway. The thing is, each party's voters are voting for an agenda, and it's perfectly valid to make support on another matter a quid pro quo for more of that agenda. People are always welcome to vote for Labor if they think Labor policy is good and want it waved through, and to vote for the Coalition if they don't. Enough people didn't do that to allow room for negotiation and horse trading. That's democracy.

 

[Rustin Cohle]

Yes, yes, it’s all the majors’ fault and the poor widdle Greens are always negotiating in good faith. Lol

Them plucky underdogs would never grandstand or engage in bullshit populism.

All I see is straw-men, whataboutism and deflection in this thread about a pathetic, childish amendment from an unserious political party that will never be more than fringe movement.

 

[Gralin]

Yes, yes, it’s all the majors’ fault and the poor widdle Greens are always negotiating in good faith. Lol

Them plucky underdogs would never grandstand or engage in bullshit populism.

All I see is straw-men, whataboutism and deflection in this thread about a pathetic, childish amendment from an unserious political party that will never be more than fringe movement.

Ok

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Yes, yes, it’s all the majors’ fault and the poor widdle Greens are always negotiating in good faith. Lol

Them plucky underdogs would never grandstand or engage in bullshit populism.

All I see is straw-men, whataboutism and deflection in this thread about a pathetic, childish amendment from an unserious political party that will never be more than fringe movement.

The majors are what got us into this mess to begin with. Why keep doing the same thing when it's clearly not working?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

All I see is straw-men, whataboutism and deflection in this thread about a pathetic, childish amendment from an unserious political party that will never be more than fringe movement.

The ACT must make you shiver with fright, since the Greens are part of the government there.

 

[QuietB]

Tell me, are a group of well-off bankers going to prioritise what is good for ordinary people, or what is good for the finance industry?

They make their margins no matter what the rate is. It makes virtually no difference to them. In fact they will make more money as rates come down than they make with rates going up.

 

[Carn The Berries]

So what? If it exists, it can be used. They're within their rights to ask for the government to use powers that they have.


Funny, when people were condemning the Greens for not immediately expressing their enthusiastic support for Labor's emissions targets a few years ago, I remember those people saying "pass the bill now, then when Labor need a favour in future, ask them to increase the emissions target in return". Now I see someone suggesting the conplete opposite.

This view seems to me like it's demanding the utter supremacy of the two major parties, letting them set the agenda and not allowing any sort of negotiation. Albo's way or the highway. The thing is, each party's voters are voting for an agenda, and it's perfectly valid to make support on another matter a quid pro quo for more of that agenda. People are always welcome to vote for Labor if they think Labor policy is good and want it waved through, and to vote for the Coalition if they don't. Enough people didn't do that to allow room for negotiation and horse trading. That's democracy.

That's comparing apples and oranges. The Greens were against the fundamental structure of the emissions targets legislation (being the targets that were included in the bill itself). I haven't heard anyone from the Greens say they have any issues with the structure of this policy, they just want the government to intervene in a process that has been specifically set up to avoid political interference.

I get that horse trading is part of the political process, but to expect a government to do something like intervene in monetary policy is pie in the sky garbage, and isn't negotiating in good faith (they have stated they won't support the bill unless that happens).

 

[Saint]

I don't see this last-ditch effort by the Greens to get either the Govt or the RBA to do something about the impact of inflation and high interest rates on lower-income earners to be a real problem. I think they should have said loud and clear that they want either the Govt (who has more levers) or the RBA (who have one dumb lever) to do something, anything about the suffering of lower-income earners and the windfall the top 10% are getting because of the current policy settings of both Govt and the RBA.

The Greens might not be right on the mechanism, but they're the only ones who are actually talking about doing something about a crisis that the RBA and most politicians seem to be ignorant of.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

That's comparing apples and oranges. The Greens were against the fundamental structure of the emissions targets legislation (being the targets that were included in the bill itself). I haven't heard anyone from the Greens say they have any issues with the structure of this policy, they just want the government to intervene in a process that has been specifically set up to avoid political interference.

Not being against something doesn't mean being for it, unless one has a George W Bush view of the world. And if the process was set up to avoid any political interference ever, then the power to overrule the RBA wouldn't exist.

I get that horse trading is part of the political process, but to expect a government to do something like intervene in monetary policy is pie in the sky garbage,

Is it? Then why do they have the power, and why did Chalmers end up amending his bill to maintain that power?

And I'd argue this demand to intervene in monetary policy is a direct consequence of Chalmers and Labor failing to do their jobs on fiscal policy (which is why they're losing in the opinion polls to an evil sentient potato). People are hurting, and following the Greens' demand might actually save Labor from the wrath of the electorate at the next election. At the end of the day, the RBA only have one tool to carry out their goals (aside from open market operations which they're not engaging in right now), the government have two, and if they repeatedly refuse to use one, why shouldn't there be calls to use the other?

A lot of neoliberal economists and pro-establishment talking heads are vociferously scolding the Greens for not blindly following the high priests of interest rates no matter what they say. But none of those people, the economists, the talking heads, the RBA board members, are doing it tough. None of them truly feel the consequences of those decisions. And I think when one is insulated from the impact ordinary people feel, it is difficult to govern in a way that actually addresses their concerns. Because that is what the RBA are doing, governing, just in a specific way. And a lot of people are cheering for governance without democratic accountability on this.

and isn't negotiating in good faith (they have stated they won't support the bill unless that happens).

Please explain.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Not being against something doesn't mean being for it, unless one has a George W Bush view of the world. And if the process was set up to avoid any political interference ever, then the power to overrule the RBA wouldn't exist.


Is it? Then why do they have the power, and why did Chalmers end up amending his bill to maintain that power?

And I'd argue this demand to intervene in monetary policy is a direct consequence of Chalmers and Labor failing to do their jobs on fiscal policy (which is why they're losing in the opinion polls to an evil sentient potato). People are hurting, and following the Greens' demand might actually save Labor from the wrath of the electorate at the next election. At the end of the day, the RBA only have one tool to carry out their goals (aside from open market operations which they're not engaging in right now), the government have two, and if they repeatedly refuse to use one, why shouldn't there be calls to use the other?

A lot of neoliberal economists and pro-establishment talking heads are vociferously scolding the Greens for not blindly following the high priests of interest rates no matter what they say. But none of those people, the economists, the talking heads, the RBA board members, are doing it tough. None of them truly feel the consequences of those decisions. And I think when one is insulated from the impact ordinary people feel, it is difficult to govern in a way that actually addresses their concerns. Because that is what the RBA are doing, governing, just in a specific way. And a lot of people are cheering for governance without democratic accountability on this.


Please explain.

I completely agree with this, which is why this pie in the sky demand for government intervention with the RBA is so absurd. The Greens should be focusing their pressure on the government to utilise the tools it has responsibility for to address the current economic issues.

Artificially forcing interest rates down, when the main economic indicators suggest you shouldn't, is just dumb. Crying out for it, when there are other (better) options available, just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

They make their margins no matter what the rate is. It makes virtually no difference to them. In fact they will make more money as rates come down than they make with rates going up.

I'm referring to the RBA board.