Well said Maldinis Heir, that an interesting suggestion – sounds good.

Time for a new RBA board in its entirety.

The saying is it’s a tax on the poor.

The RBA’s rate hikes have created windfalls for the banks who pass on the increases to borrowers with a bit of extra sugar, and don’t pass anything onto savers.

They also benefit those with savings who are also mostly those mortgage free home owners of a certain generation.

They also give cover for other monopolists and oligopolists to raise prices in the markets they control.

Interest rates aren’t even the only tool the RBA has. Through its role on the Council of Financial Regulators, which is chaired by Bullock and brings together the RBA, APRA, the Treasury and ASIC, the RBA has a role in ensuring financial stability which includes regulating banks’ lending.

If the RBA wanted to reduce the banks’ lending, which it is doing indirectly through interest rate hikes, it could just do so forefoot by restricting how much the banks can lend.

Imagine that.

If the banks just didn’t lend money to people as opposed to lending money to people that they cannot afford so that those people become subjugated to the banks for the rest of their lives.

Yes Bolivar, the RBA was chock-a-block full of enablers of wealth concentration, if the changes Labor brought in has made the slightest difference it isn’t evident.

I’m no expert, but I think it was plain to see that interest rates were too low, and were kept too low for most the lost decade under the Coalition. What should be an optimum rate, is I would argue not to question here. The rate at which the rates were raised hurt the ‘average’ person and the economy.

That the RBA should have been used to combat the inflation we experienced and that it is basically the sole lever to be pulled, again not as an expert but from what I’ve read, I would argue, is a load of cobblers the lackeys of the 1%ers peddle to make the masses bear the brunt whilst ever more wealth is concentrated in the few wealthiest.

Labor is charge, figuratively speaking, and haven’t looked after anywhere near enough our most vulnerable. Throw them out.

That’s splendid klewso…………..exxxxcccellent.

Her reasoning remains lousy. Prices to do with housing remain high, so we raise interest rates in order to “reduce demand” for housing. That is, in order to increase the number of unoccupied houses and incidentally homeless people. Of course increased homelessness results in increased demand for housing, which means interest rates will have to rise to reduce demand. It seems that Ms Bullock’s endgame is Australian cities with all of the houses empty their former inhabitants live in tents outside. If so… well, it’s going fine so far.