Clive Palmer Right about Interest Rates (Well Half, but More than Other Pollies)

lethological on 07/05/2022 - 12:07

Seeing the yellow billboards promising 5 years with interest rates fixed to 3% everywhere I am shocked to be thinkibg Palmer may be onto something.

But in usual fashion he's in way too deep for it to be meaningful.

I believe a 3% Cap on interest rates is a good thing for a subset of loans. If our goal is increasing new home ownership and supporting housing affordability.

The catch I think that is missing:
This should only be for first home owner or net portfolio of less than 1 million.

This would provide the safety net for those that need it the most. While allowing market forces to operate upon those that have made poor financial decisions and motivate a deleveraging of their positions.

What does OzBargain think?

(Personal disclosure this limited enrollment to the cap would not benefit me personally)

Poll Options

  • 426
    Lazy Fair, let the market do it's thing
  • 36
    I agree with Palmer
  • 28
    Prefer a limited cap for those vulnerable
  • 21
    Other
Financial Federal Election

Comments

          • gromit on 09/05/2022 - 10:02

            @EightImmortals: I also think that is moronic and will only put more upwards pressure on house prices at the lower end, but even that looks sane compared to Clive's brain fart.

          • Ughhh on 09/05/2022 - 10:39
            +1

            @EightImmortals:

            What about labors 'hey-we'll-buy-40%-of-your-mortgage' dealy?

            you gotta pay it back BTW, it's not exactly free money

  • brendanm on 07/05/2022 - 14:14
    +15

    The government can't control interest rates, Clive is deluded, and trying to get people like op to vote for uap.

    Also, interest rates are set on risk, not whether someone is a first home owner.

    • lowlifesphere on 11/05/2022 - 20:48

      Government can do anything with legislation. The rba is mandated by legislation.

      • ihfree on 12/05/2022 - 21:17

        Even override the laws of mathematics?

  • USER DC on 07/05/2022 - 14:31
    +14

    If you have any knowledge you would know this by know

    lowering the interest rates doesn't make houses more affordable, rather less affordable.

    So the whole campaign is technically saying, they will try to further hike up all prices, cause further inflation, make housing only affordable to rich class.

    low interests rate can help people pay less in interests, but its of NO use if the principle amount of home is outside the buyer's affordability range, e.g. bank loan interest rate down to 2%, trying to mortgage 1Million dollar home with 1 person with 40K annual salary. that 40K salary person will never be able to buy home, he will never reach credit line of anywhere close to 1 Million dollars at all.

    While poor continues to struggles with day to day life, and sucks up paying rents.

    Anyway as people have already mentioned TRUE interest rates are controlled by RBA, not ruling party, they are separated via power. That being said government can always bring a law restricting how much interest rate hike a bank is allowed to pass onto customer, (e.g. from RBA interest rate of 0.35% to Bank's lending rate of 3.5% ~ a 10% lending profit.) This is something that government can probably control, but it would also lead to a massive decrease in economic investor confidence.

    The problem with Australian governments is none of them think about long term benefit to Australian citizens, they only care about short term work to ensure they win next election, so they will never always avoid raising taxes (which may be actually really bad to not increase taxes, it increase government debt, further adding to inflation by diluting $ by free money printing.)

  • monkeybusiness on 07/05/2022 - 15:26
    +10

    This is just lazy policy and could plunge Australia into a worse scenario.

    As funding and interest rates around the world rise, It would make our banks unprofitable. I'm not defending bank profits here but as with any business, banks simply won't go and lend at 3% when their cost of lending is going to be greater then that.

    The flow on effects is that banks will only attempt to lend to the most wealthiest and safest of customers (if at all). Which means the young and first home owners will simply not get a loan to begin with.

    There is always a domino effect that politicians fail to see in their grab for votes

    Source: https://theconversation.com/clive-palmers-promise-to-cap-mor…

    • rektrading on 07/05/2022 - 15:57
      +3

      CBA, which follows a different reporting calendar than its rivals, said cash net profit after tax at Australia's biggest bank rose 19.8% to A$8.65 billion in the year ended June 30, beating a consensus estimate of A$8.55 bln from five analysts.

      They can afford it.

  • MrThing on 07/05/2022 - 15:40
    +21

    Clive palmer can promise anything because he will never be in government, so will never have to follow through with such an idea.

    His marketing is for basic simple people. Its copy paste technique of the GOP in America. Feed on peoples fears and promise that only WE can fix the issue

    • rektrading on 07/05/2022 - 16:00

      Are people that are less "basic simple people" more likely to vote for other parties?

      • MrThing on 07/05/2022 - 16:39
        +9

        basic simple people are more likely to be swayed by the style of campaign one nation or uap run

        works a treat for the GOP in america.

        fear, fear, immigrants, your going to run out of money, fear, scare, blame, fear

    • anonymous01 on 09/05/2022 - 21:18
      +1

      Be careful saying such stuff.. A lot of Americans also thought Trump would never be their president.

  • ALesha77 on 07/05/2022 - 16:33
    +9

    STUPID idea from a populist who desperately needs more votes and pushes all pain buttons!
    ANY meddling with the market forces always results in bubbles or rationing and almost always in revolts.

    If you think that commercial banks will provide money that they borrow based at market rate to public at a discounted rate hence making a LOSS you are even more delusional than mr Palmer. If RBA will print whole bunch of paper and give it commercial banks at 0% base rate, then AUD chart will look very much like JPY right now - 45 degrees down and to the right. Inflation on imported goods will be doube-digits.

    Even better - read about Turkey situation. They also have a "bright mind" as head of state who claims that lower interest rates fight inflation. As a result - double digit inflation only this year, people fight for food and necessities in the shopping malls, the country is broke and will possibly default soon. This is where AU will be in a few years after "3% limit".

  • JimmyF on 07/05/2022 - 17:47
    +4

    I believe a 3% Cap on interest rates is a good thing

    not how the market works, just look at the last 48 months of record low rates and the impact on prices for everything from houses to food.

  • freefall101 on 07/05/2022 - 17:58
    +5

    It's the age old tactic, make promises that are complicated and made to sound like an idea that no one has tried, rather than an idea that just makes zero sense.

    If Palmer had promised to buy everyone a house, people would go "well that's absurd, it wouldn't work" and he'd only get a few votes. Because that would involve lots of debt and it's pretty simple so see how that would go wrong.

    But pretending there's a magic wand he could use, cap interest rates and keep housing affordable, that's the kind of shit that people attach themselves to. The answer to why that wouldn't work becomes more complicated, it's not immediately clear on the impact (either massive inflation or massive debt, probably both) and it sounds good. To the average Joe or Josephine up to their eyeballs in debt, the idea they won't be royally reamed for the stupid purchasing decision they made sounds like a pretty good thing.

    After all, Clive is a successful businessman, he knows what he's doing. Right?

    • rektrading on 07/05/2022 - 18:18

      Ducks say that Clive Palmer is 🇦🇺 7️⃣ richest person.

      +$18B and counting.

      • freefall101 on 07/05/2022 - 18:29

        Not questioning that he's rich, just questioning whether that makes him trustworthy.

        Musk and Bezos are rich, they'd make terrible politicians. Both would gut social services to give corporations more money to go into space. If Palmer became PM he'd simply relax tax laws, rack up a lot of debt and make himself richer. That's what rich people do.

        • rektrading on 07/05/2022 - 18:32
          -8

          It makes them good risk managers.

          Nobody gets to accumulate $1B without good risk management let alone $18B.

          Politicians come from all walks of life. Being rich shows that they can manage resources effectively to turn x resource into positive returns.

          • ItsMeAgro on 07/05/2022 - 19:25
            +2

            @rektrading: Why do you care about how clever he's going to be with money he plans to steal from you? (Not that he actually will be clever with it, LOL).

            This is Clive Palmer, not Warren Buffet.

            • rektrading on 07/05/2022 - 19:26

              @ItsMeAgro: Clive Palmer isn't going to steal money from me. Australians may be but not me.

              Warren Buffet is an old 🐀 and I've his poison.

          • freefall101 on 07/05/2022 - 20:02
            +1

            @rektrading: Yes, and they tend to do it for themselves, not the population at large.

            Why would becoming a politician change his risk strategy? Supporting workers, tackling climate change, reducing housing prices, all of these things hurt him personally.

            He would turn the resources of being Prime Minister into positive returns for himself, it is what he has done his entire life.

            • rektrading on 07/05/2022 - 20:15
              +1

              @freefall101: I'm sure Palmer will fit right in with every other Australian politician.

              • freefall101 on 07/05/2022 - 20:17
                +2

                @rektrading: Only he'll be better at ripping us off :P

                He has more to gain. Most politicians can, at best, hope for a contract with a supplier and need to worry about getting reelected for multiple terms. What he could do in one term is what scares me, especially since he's bankrolling the entire party. He's not even running, if he won he'd just be the man pulling the strings on everyone.

                Not that it matters, they won't come within a million miles of winning.

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 07/05/2022 - 20:21
    -6

    between UAP, The Greens, One Nation and other minority parties/independents we are going to be stuffed like we were when Gillards ALP had to form a minority government i dont like either of the Majors but whoever wins need to win by enough to form a majority government otherwise nothing but money wasting and figure pointing will happen for 3-years

    • SteveBuscemi on 08/05/2022 - 11:39
      +25

      Revisionist history garbage. Whether you support or hate their policies, in terms of percentage of legislation introduced that successfully passed both houses, the Gillard minority government ranks second in Aus history, beyond only Howard’s 4th term (when the Libs controlled both houses). I think on sheer number they may even rank first. They introduced major legislation including NDIS and Gonski. They were by many measures an effective government and the Carbon "Tax" that was their death knell was certainly not the output of a "do nothing" government.

      They were a far more effective government than both the previous Rudd government and every Lib government since, governments who have both found themselves essentially held hostage by the Nationals on major reform and had numerous bills fail to get through, even with an ineffective opposition who often votes with them.

      Sure ideologically you would want some sort of majority, but diversity from a party standpoint is a good thing in politics, its the very basis of our system involving the election of 227-odd members of two houses. The more diversity and collaboration and consultation and less members voting blindly down party lines (and ineffective oppositions voting with the government on virtually everything) the better.

    • gromit on 08/05/2022 - 20:35
      +2

      I think for the first time in my voting life I have to disagree with that. Both parties have shown a complete disreguard for sensible policy and financial management. The best outcome may be a term of deadlock caused by the independents to make both of the major parties wake the F up and start actually doing their job properly.

  • Myone888 on 08/05/2022 - 07:46

    It’s economics gone bananas, how can 0 interest rates be prolonged, RBA not doing their job to let inflation run away, house prices shooting up when rest of world coming down! It’s too much too late now.

    • rektrading on 08/05/2022 - 08:52

      It's not the central bank's job to control the price of real estate. The market does that by itself with supply and demand.

      • Bren20 on 08/05/2022 - 18:01
        +1

        Except supply is massively constrained and demand is forever increasing, with predictable outcomes

        • rektrading on 08/05/2022 - 18:54
          +1

          The central bank's job is monetary policy.

          They've nothing to do with the supply and demand of hard assets. The price of hard assets is set by vendors and buyers.

          • Bren20 on 08/05/2022 - 20:43
            +2

            @rektrading: Yes, I agree, but I disagree that real estate is anywhere near a conventional free market

            • Baysew on 09/05/2022 - 15:06

              @Bren20: Because?

              • greatlamp on 09/05/2022 - 20:18
                +2

                @Baysew: Because when prices decrease so does supply AND demand, when prices increase supply increases - but it lags behind AND demand also increases - immediately. It is a speculation driven market, not a free market.

                In a conventional market demand decreases and supply increases when prices rise.

                It doesn't follow any of the rules of supply and demand, and ignoring that is how we keep getting stupid policies like 'first home buyer grants' that further increase the prices of homes that would otherwise be affordable.

                All these policies do is pad the pockets of the banking sector and supports Australias most important industry - building apartments for foreign investors

              • Bren20 on 09/05/2022 - 21:23

                @Baysew: Additional to Shacktool's very good answer, there isn't land available where people want to live, we can't make any more houses on quarter acre blocks with 15km of the city, which is what everyone wants. So the price shoots sky high, as there's no ability for the market to supply any more if these. Add to this a growing population which will see increased demand without any increase in supply, and the increase in supply is through less desired housing such as flats or urban growth

    • xavster on 10/05/2022 - 00:47
      +1

      Hiya! I just want to point out that the RBA has 3 main mandates.
      1. Maintain full employment
      2. Currency stability
      3. Economic prosperity for Australia

      The RBA does not have a mandate to control house prices, the RBA has two main policy tools to manage this. First, the direct policy approach of setting the overnight cash rate. Second is the soft policy approach of the jaw bone.

      If your issue is with high house prices, I'd like to point out that this issue is completely artificial and can be fixed very easily via government legislation. House prices are high due to borrowing capacity. If the borrowing capacity is reduced, prices will come down.

      The federal government can just legislate, for example, a maximum borrowing capacity of 50% for the purchase of 'existing' residential real estate. This will instantly reduce peoples borrowing power and force people to save like crazy and put real downward pressure on house prices and inflation. However, doing this will wipe out household wealth of millions of Australian homeowners and will be political suicide for any party.

      Better leave it to the RBA to use their interest rate lever to slowly reduce borrowing capacity instead.

  • tabitha731 on 08/05/2022 - 08:07
    +2

    How can you take advise from some fat over-privileged man, who has no idea about the realities of everyday life…. Why would u trust the words from someone in Qld… people who smoke the wacky tabacky so often then forgotten hoe many fingers they actually have?!

  • Yorkshire-Man on 08/05/2022 - 08:14
    +9

    Clive is the definition of the 1%, using his wealth to gain power to influence govt policy. Promise whatever he wants to get votes, with zero intentions of ever doing this.

    OP are you on Clive's team by any chance?

    • Ughhh on 08/05/2022 - 10:07
      +4

      If you do not, then try something else.

      I think most people would rather vote for one of the two potatoes, than a mouldy bread.

    • drfuzzy on 08/05/2022 - 16:36
      +1

      In the Venn diagram of "smart" and "idiot", Craig occupies alot of "idiot" and no "smart".

    • GrueHunter on 08/05/2022 - 16:50

      If you are happy with your lot, if you think things are getting better for society and if you think a good job is being done then continue to vote for LNP or Labor

      cheers, will do

      I think most people are morons

      big surprise

  • Boogerman on 08/05/2022 - 08:43
    +5

    Stopped at 'Clive Palmer'.
    So. Many. Simpletons. Voting.

  • Herbse on 08/05/2022 - 09:14
    +7

    Palmer has no interest in ever getting into government. His sole aim is to stop Labor winning by stealing small percentage votes from key areas. It worked at the last election and is why the Libs won the unwinnable election.
    They made vague, 3 word promises with zero police or planning and people who like simple things and "someone different" voted for them and put liberals second preference because thats how UAPs voting cards tell you to.

    There's a good chance this will happen again this year..

    • tomfool on 10/05/2022 - 14:43

      Are you suggesting that Labor voters align more with Clive Palmer views then the Libs?

      • Herbse on 10/05/2022 - 14:51
        +1

        It's about taking any votes from wherever he can. Mainly from people who don't already have a strong alliance to a party. Eg the politically uneducated. People who don't follow politics and would be swayed by brand recognition and 3 word policies.
        These people might vote for labor or libs depending on who has the nicest looking voting card on the day. There's hundreds of thousands of people who don't have a side and just go in because they have to.

        His aim is to make himself look like an alternative to the "big 2".. But we have preferential voting in Australia, so 1 vote to UAP doesn't mean zero to the other parties, they get a small bump as well depending on how the voter numbers them. I

        If you look at the how to vote cards the UAP handed out last election, the libs were preferenced second and Labor was last.

        So even if he took first preference votes away from the Libs, they still get more points than Labor would.

  • turbochris on 08/05/2022 - 09:34
    +3

    You seem to have mistaken a thought bubble for a plan.

    • Herbse on 08/05/2022 - 12:29
      +3

      3 word slogans work on some people

  • HelpMeiCantSee on 08/05/2022 - 09:42
    +5

    Unpopular opinion, but the market is severely overvalued. We need a significant price crash >30%.

    Realistically, 60%+ would bring it from lunacy back to normality

    • rektrading on 08/05/2022 - 10:02
      -1

      A strong real estate market is a strong labor market.

      Destroy real estate and expect 10000s of people to lose their job.

      • HelpMeiCantSee on 08/05/2022 - 10:03
        +1

        I fully expect it. There’s a brutal recession coming. None of this “strength” is sustainable. At all.

        • rektrading on 08/05/2022 - 10:08

          The "benefit" of tanking the real estate market will do more than just reduce the price.

          The taxpayers will be footing the bill for the 10000s of lost jobs.

          • greatlamp on 09/05/2022 - 20:37
            +1

            @rektrading: Let the jobs be lost.

            Why do we continuously need to prop up the banking and construction industry?

            I don't think I am alone in saying that I am sick of my taxes being used to make my cost of living increase.

            • rektrading on 09/05/2022 - 21:29

              @greatlamp: Real estate is one of the biggest employers in Australia.

              A collapse of the market will have a contagion effect.

        • gromit on 08/05/2022 - 20:55
          +1

          tanking the market with a brutal recession coming is not what we need. The best outcome is price stagnation until incomes catch up.

  • Assiduous on 08/05/2022 - 09:59
    +5

    Low interest rates don't really improve housing affordability, they only worsen it. Financed by debt leveraging, asset-price inflation increases rentier wealth while indebting the economy at large. Debts mount up exponentially, absorbing the surplus and reducing much of the population to the equivalent of debt peonage. Palmer's policy is a distraction and short term opportunistic vote grab rather than a meaningful solution to anything.

    • rektrading on 08/05/2022 - 10:09

      Debt is the best tool to use to accumulate hard assets.

      • mdavant on 08/05/2022 - 10:22

        Or virtual replaceable electronic "assets" with no currently viable income stream.

        Sounds good hey ;)

        • rektrading on 08/05/2022 - 10:28
          -1

          There are ways to get yield on hard assets. It depends on how much knowledge one has and the risk profile.

  • disturboed on 08/05/2022 - 10:44
    +1

    Keeping interest rates low does not support housing affordability. Pretty simple fact. I mean just look at how much prices have skyrocketed during the years of super low rates.

  • Cluster on 08/05/2022 - 10:48
    +6

    UAP has released no details on how they would cap interest rates. If the mortgage cap would be 3%, that means an RBA cash rate of about 1% at most. How would they cap interest rates when inflation is running at 5%?

    UAP could force banks to cap, but then banks would implement fees and charges to claw back the lost money, or simply stop writing new loans until the cap period is over. You can't force major businesses to sell products at a loss simply because the government said so. The cap would work as well as any populist measure during times of inflation, such as capping the price of goods.

    Even the USA experimented with price capping in 1971, and it was a failure.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/nixon-fight-inflation-price-con…

    All it does is lead to shortages of goods.

    UAP's 'FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!' campaign may have earned votes in Melbourne in 2020, but unfortunately for UAP the lockdowns have ended and are unlikely to return. So UAP jumped on the next populist bandwagon.

    • mavis30551 on 11/05/2022 - 13:16

      I am in some of those "Freedom groups" and even though lock downs are over they're all surprisingly still mad about it.

      UAP already has those votes, this strategy is for new votes.

  • whatgift on 08/05/2022 - 11:15
    +9

    Let’s not forget that Palmer barely turned up to parliament sittings when he was last in parliament - he has no interest in the people he represents, and is telling people what they want to hear. I will be going out of my way to put him dead last on my ballot paper, even if it means putting numbers in a huge number of boxes below the line!

    • Herbse on 08/05/2022 - 12:31
      +6

      He is counting on the ignorance and politically uneducated.

      Hence his plan of spamming the advertising and relying on brand recognition rather than any policies.

    • AustriaBargain on 08/05/2022 - 16:03

      He also never finished his Titanic II, a project which you think would be popular enough in the long run to pay for itself if only he could be bothered building it. The only Titanic replica in the world would be very popular with tourists everywhere.

  • TooSerious2 on 08/05/2022 - 11:16
    +1

    Can the government not just lend money directly to homeowners at 3%? Owner-occupier only, very vanilla, fixed, no redraw, 20% deposit, full documentation, etc

    Limited access limits the impact on house prices and inflation (as with Labor's buy in for 10,000).

    With no branches, no deposits, no ads, no sports sponsorships and the, in theory, bottomless pit of government backing, it would be financially feasible. I imaging the banks would whinge about having their rivers of gold diverted.

    In fact, it sounds like nationalising the home mortgage industry. But that smacks a little of communism.

    It's a pity Palmer has smeared his stench over this idea. It makes people dismiss it out of hand rather than considering how it might be made to work - like Pauline Hanson's "flat tax"/transaction tax.

    ALP voter here by the way, but of the doubting Thomas variety - getting tempted by the $3 odds on offer for Morrison

    • Herbse on 08/05/2022 - 12:32
      +1

      getting tempted by the $3 odds on offer for Morrison

      I've put money on the libs to win again. With tactics like what Palmer is doing to scalp small percentages away from Labor, it's definitely possible.

    • AustriaBargain on 08/05/2022 - 16:01

      How about rent controlling existing properties for the next 10 years.

      • drfuzzy on 08/05/2022 - 16:39

        A rent control for a minimum yield I'd vote for.

      • Cluster on 09/05/2022 - 11:33
        +1

        Rent control leads to severe shortages of properties, and a reduction in quality to existing ones.

        • Shortages come from the fact that no landlord would invest in building a new property and having to pay its ever increasing maintenance costs while the renter is insulated from the effects of said inflation. It would completely destroy confidence in the market if there's risk of the government suddenly imposing a huge new cost onto landlords.

        • Landlords will become even slacker fixing problems with the property. Why bother if the cost of maintenance goes up while no extra income is generated?

        There are countries in Europe that have tried rent control. Germany and Poland come to mind. It lead to severe shortages of properties as new supply simply dried up.

        • AustriaBargain on 09/05/2022 - 12:06

          When I was a kid landlords weren't "investors", being a landlord was a profession, it was just a job. It wasn't a "market" that required confidence to exist, it was just something that some people did. No one seriously expected their house to be worth three times as much a decade after buying it either.

          Perhaps it's time for the government (i.e. we the people) to start getting into the housing game, to provide housing for regular people who just want somewhere to live and want no part of an investment scheme. The government could build new homes if it really wanted to, that is to say we could build a lot more public housing if we really wanted. Imagine if there were no buses and trains because taxi drivers had "invested" in their vehicle and taxi license and would vote against any government that tried to build mass public transport.

          • greatlamp on 09/05/2022 - 20:29

            @AustriaBargain: The Chinese government does this, remember the big scare about all the 'ghost cities' China was building.

    • gromit on 10/05/2022 - 10:44

      They can, but that is effectively the taxpayers funding this at huge cost as not even the government can borrow money at below that rate and the government is well and truly in debt so it doesn't have the money laying around, printing more pushes inflation even higher so that doesn't solve it either.

      so theoretically yes they can do that, but it would be an financial disaster.

  • doryappleseed on 08/05/2022 - 11:54
    +3

    The Australian Government can’t even borrow for less than 3% for the next thirty years, how are you somehow a less risky borrower than the federal government?

    • brendanm on 08/05/2022 - 16:27
      -1

      how are you somehow a less risky borrower than the federal government?

      Most people are much more fiscally responsible than the federal government, and are spending their own money, so actually care about it.

      • greatlamp on 09/05/2022 - 20:59
        +2

        That's not what risk means.

        The Australian government isn't going to run out out of money and be unable to repay their loans.

        This idea that the government wastes money is a bit of a stereotype. What is the comparison?

        NBN wasted money, but what do you compare to? Telstra was never going to run fibre to rural areas, or most outer suburbs of our large cities. Before I had the crap liberal party NBN, I was limited to ADSL 1 speeds.

        Private industry never wastes as much money because they don't take risks, and they don't make investments for the social good.

  • ganymede on 08/05/2022 - 12:03
    +2

    Clive probably won't even vote for himself.

  • CrazyBargainCatcher on 08/05/2022 - 12:21

    Fropanity Palmer

  • Blargman2001 on 08/05/2022 - 12:42

    Sure cap them at 3%. So instead of paying all my money in to my mortgage my money goes to everything else due to out of control inflation. I imagine then he'll just cap the price of everything else. Australia then goes the way of all the other banana republics out there with a worthless currency and a broken economy.

  • tessel on 08/05/2022 - 13:06

    I had to vote other to make the last 3 options equal in votes….

  • sovereign01 on 08/05/2022 - 13:12
    +4

    This is unbelievably dumb - It is utterly unfeasible. The knock-on effects of this would be cataclysmic for Government treasury.

  • AustriaBargain on 08/05/2022 - 15:55
    +1

    I don't think Australia should hurt as a whole just to save property investors money. No one put a gun to those peoples heads and said they must buy investment properties and no one owes them the easy returns they told themselves they were going to get when they borrowed for it.

  • GrimCheaper on 08/05/2022 - 16:00
    +3

    Palmer is just trying to pander to all the populist ideas. I don't believe the United Party has any practical policies which demonstrate how they intend to implement their ambitious claims.

    It's more a reflection of his integrity that he can just throw ideas like that in the open air without having any forethought of how to execute them.

  • Vote for Pedro on 08/05/2022 - 16:25

    Isn’t this communism?

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 08/05/2022 - 16:27
    +12

    Anyone voting for Clive and UAP and utter idiots.

    Just look at his last stint in office. SEVEN percent attendance at parliament. One of those occasions he fell asleep.

    He's just trying to funnel the dumbass bogan votes into the Libs.

  • MisterNobody on 08/05/2022 - 16:34

    Clive Palmer and his whack job billboards. He has zero credibility.

    Banks don't just loan money without actually having a proportion of the money they loan in cold hard cash (ie deposits). This is why you get paid to deposit money in the bank…. because the bank uses it to loan money.

    The loan interest rate must be higher than deposit interest rate or the banks aren't making money. Further more, the deposit interest rate has to be greater than inflation or the person with money deposited in the bank is making a loss.

    In short, it's all relative to the inflation rate and Clive Palmer can't do nothing about that. He's a "vote baiter".

    • Herbse on 08/05/2022 - 18:00

      You're making too much sense for a pro Palmer thread

  • DemocracyManifest on 08/05/2022 - 19:06

    This is crap policy, it could result in a US-esque ‘sub prime’ mortgage crisis

    https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/apr/30/clive…

  • gromit on 08/05/2022 - 20:24

    3% cap would be an utter disaster, banks would simply refuse to loan money as they won't loan it at a loss or the taxpayers will end up having to pay 10's to 100's of billions to cover the difference.

  • beyondtool on 08/05/2022 - 20:48
    +2

    This is the type of advertising that really gets me riled up. It’s obscene fiction that rates could be locked to 3% even IF Palmer wanted to do this. There’s no way to control the banks and the global financial system that ultimately feeds into the rates we pay in Australia.

    What’s even more disingenuous is that he doesn’t specify if the 3% rate is the banks mortgage rates or the RBA set rates (which are only .35% right now). The advertising is so misleading on so many levels, this is exactly the type of thing that makes me raise my fist in the air and scream 🤬

  • od810 on 08/05/2022 - 22:40
    +1

    Why cap it at 3%? If he thinks he can cap it at 3%, he might as well make it interest free. Or better yet, buy back all the property and give it backto everyone for free through lottery system. The idea is so dumb

  • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 09/05/2022 - 06:20
    +1

    Ridiculous idea that completely ignores the operation of monetary policy independent from government.

  • Bid Sniper on 09/05/2022 - 08:52

    Fatty McFface only cares about himself and happy meals, doesnt pay workers, why should be anyone listen to this idiot?

  • jonathan111 on 09/05/2022 - 08:54

    Sing it with me - now thats my kind of party, the United Australia party 🥳

    https://youtu.be/dMnD_jaOkQo

  • xylarr on 09/05/2022 - 09:37

    Do you mean "laissez faire" for the first choice?

  • ajr5k on 09/05/2022 - 09:46

    The housing market is already so heavily interfered with by the government, which in turn has put us in the predicament we are in at present.

    The bottom line is the government should stay out of it, and allow the market to reach the natural equlibrium - Continued interference in the forms of subsidies just kicks the can along the road for a little while.

  • Brianqpr on 09/05/2022 - 10:02

    Palmer can say whatever he likes, as he'll never be in a position to have to do any of it.

    Instead of throwing his money away in this attention seeking fashion again and again, why not do something good with it?

    • diddy50 on 09/05/2022 - 10:19
      +1

      Kinda like the Greens

  • Antikythera on 09/05/2022 - 10:05
    +2

    Couldn't Clive implement this today?

    Start a business and offer a few billion dollars of 20 year fixed 3% loans.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join