About The Latest Interest Rate Increase

Cognitive Consonance on 30/09/2026 - 14:16

Consumers are still being blamed for inflation, and have to carry the load for it.
Just straight out bullsh*t from politicians of all parties who know nothing.
.

First, The government borrows much more that its capacity and incurs huge interest bills.
The only way they see to reduce their debt is to devalue the currency, and the only way to do that is Inflation.
In addition to that, it distorts the labour market to build whatever projects they see as vote winners, by paying egregious wages to not only drag people from the normal economy, but set off a competing wage demand cycle.
Then there's the banks.
Would not Govt or Reserve Bank enforcement of reduction of LVR's on home loans, even credit cards limits, slow down the construction industry without sacrificing existing borrowers.
Wouldn't actions like these slow down the money supply without inflation?
Or does the Reserve Bank not have to power to do anything except the same thing they have always done?
In which case what is the point of them?

Financial Interest

Comments

Best
Search through all the comments in this post.
      • JIMB0 on 30/09/2026 - 15:51

        It’s not just boomers. Some of us millennials have savings too and aren’t afraid to have a good time after years of hard work and sacrifice. I don’t know why more people aren’t in a similar situation. This country is a walk in the park and offers so much opportunity.

        • 0
        • brendanm on 30/09/2026 - 18:13

          Was

          • 13
          • SBOB on 30/09/2026 - 20:49

            @Wiadro:

            for 2.5 people

            Must be interesting trying to explain why youre checking in on a holiday with half a person

            • 1
          • Charmoffensive on 02/10/2026 - 13:17

            @Wiadro: Still less than my business class tickets to Japan.

            i love being a millennial that can spend money how ever i like

            • 0
    • wetsandwich on 30/09/2026 - 16:31

      They actually don't, they just think they do.

      If you are earning 5% on your big bank account, and paying tax on that making it really what 3.5%, all while inflation is 6%… you're still losing quite a lot each year.

      • 9
      • Dollar General on 30/09/2026 - 16:43

        But it’s risk free.

        • 0
        • Jaspa7 on 01/10/2026 - 11:40

          risk free burning of cash - yay
          /s

          • 3
        • wetsandwich on 01/10/2026 - 23:27

          True technically. But I'm not sure why people see it as 'rich retirees get even more free money now!!!' as if they are actually gaining purchasing power somehow. However many big macs, cars, or holidays they can buy right now.. it's still a lower number next year if they aren't invested in actual assets over time.

          • 1
          • tenpercent on 01/10/2026 - 23:32

            @wetsandwich:

            as if they are actually gaining purchasing power somehow

            It's all relative. Maintaining purchasing power is better than declining purchasing power.

            • 0
        • MrFrugalSpend on 02/10/2026 - 00:32

          Risk free? I once heard a quote that having cash is the only investment strategy that is guaranteed to lose (inflation adjusted, after tax)

          • 1
    • surg3on on 01/10/2026 - 08:19

      Only if inflation hasn't eaten the purchase power of your savings. Given it's 4% they are not getting much gain

      • 2
      • JIMB0 on 01/10/2026 - 10:06

        We all know real inflation is actually much higher. The headline figure is carefully "managed".

        • 4
        • fusion17 on 02/10/2026 - 19:34

          4% is phd in political science figure.

          • 0
    • EightImmortals on 30/09/2026 - 15:37

      Until the new taxation rules kick in that is.

      • 0
      • mskeggs on 30/09/2026 - 16:03

        Which rule kicks in related to savings income?

        • 1
        • EightImmortals on 30/09/2026 - 16:21

          Ordinary saving accounts or savings held in ETF's and shares?
          Savings account interest (and term deposits) is clawed back by inflation as it's not a very high return anyway but that's been the case for a while, no need for them to make new rules on order to raid that. ETF's and share savings seems overly complicated for me so I'll let my fund managers figure it out for me. :)

          • 0
    • Odin on 01/10/2026 - 18:46

      Very few people should have savings in a bank

      it's a losing position, yeah it's basically risk free, but if you're not dying next year, it's a bad place to put your money

      • 0
      • Dollar General on 01/10/2026 - 19:37

        So where is a better place to put it considering shares already make up 80% of my portfolio?

        • 1
        • wetsandwich on 01/10/2026 - 23:31

          All shares is fine if it's diversified around the world and in different industries. ETFs like VDHG include more than just shares too, so you could pretty much go all in on that.

          But the rest could be allocated partially to gold, silver, bitcoin, or property. Really depends how much money you're talking about as to whether property is feasible. I wouldn't be chucking the whole 20% solely into precious metals or bitcoin but maybe say 5% in each category is ok for some exposure.

          Also an option is a side hustle that you scale up, and use the 20% as capital for that, for example some sort of ebay importing business or whatever where more money improves things, e.g. every delivery takes 30 days to arrive, and you need to keep buying while you are selling the stock you already received.

          • 0
  • gromit on 30/09/2026 - 18:32

    Reserve bank does not set fiscal policy. That is 100% the Government and is all the governments failure. The only item the RBA has any authority over is the official rate, hence it is literally the only lever they have to pull to try to slow inflation. If you want inflation properly under control that is entirely to do with government and its failures over the last decade or so.

    • 10
  • JIMB0 on 30/09/2026 - 15:47

    Damn this interest rate rise and all the stupid comments it's generated, I've run out of negs. Guess I'll have to spend some of my extra interest to buy an add on pack.

    • 8
    • Aureus on 30/09/2026 - 17:00

      Amateur move. These comments are merely decoys for the real crazy comments to come.

      • 4
  • nned2say on 30/09/2026 - 22:49

    The government definitely takes the lion's share of responsibility. Just look at Canada, during COVID, it had a higher inflation rate than Australia, peaking at 6.8% in 2022. Since then, the Bank of Canada and the Canadian government have worked together to contain inflation. The central bank tightened monetary policy while the government made fiscal adjustments. Now, Canada's headline inflation rate has dropped to 3%, and the core inflation rate which the RBA prefers to monitor sits at 2%. When you have a government spending aggressively while its central bank tries to tighten monetary policy, how can you expect them to successfully contain inflation?
    Just give you a quick comparison, a pack of Tim Tams is sold for 3 CAD at a Canadian supermarket right now as the regular price. But you need to wait until a promotion to buy one for 3 AUD at Woolcoles.

    • 8
    • Butterchurner on 01/10/2026 - 11:41

      The Tim Tam comparison could be as simple as supply/demand. There's about 10 packs sold for every Australian each year.

      • -1
      • nned2say on 01/10/2026 - 23:22

        Doesn't Australia supply many more Tim Tam than Canada where it relies purely on imports? In that case, Tim Tam should have been much more expensive in Canada.

        • 0
        • Butterchurner on 02/10/2026 - 11:27

          You're not considering pricing strategies. Canadian businesses might use them as loss leaders. Australian businesses probably charge what they know people will pay to get them (see - the 10 packs for every Australian thing).

          • 0
          • nned2say on 07/10/2026 - 04:08

            @Butterchurner: Ah, excellent economic analysis. Taking a highly specific Australian import, turning it into a loss leader for a demographic that would rather fight a goose than eat a Tim Tam, and watching the non-existent profits roll in. What a retail strategy!!!

            • -1
            • Butterchurner on 09/10/2026 - 16:15

              @nned2say: It doesn't have to be at a loss, they could do it for no gain or minimal profit. The point is there is an obvious demand in the Australian market, and businesses can charge accordingly while that demand remains. That's economics 101. Want to change that? Only buy when it's on special. Or go buy the very similar Aldi version - for sub $3…

              • 0
      • smartazz104 on 02/10/2026 - 11:06

        Tim Tam buyers causing inflation, smh my head /s

        • 0
  • hasher22 on 01/10/2026 - 00:15

    It's ok guys, the credit card surcharge is gone today. You can now save 10.5c on that $7 cup of coffee.

    But next week that cup of coffee is $7.50.

    • 8
    • smartazz104 on 02/10/2026 - 11:10

      Coffee shops continue to go broke.

      • 0
  • DingoBilly on 01/10/2026 - 19:02

    Eh, a lot of its outside of their control.

    A lot of it is due to Trump and his delusional right wing politics. For some reason though people want the same thing here not realising parties like One Nation will similarly make things worse.

    People are dumb though. 🤦

    • 7
  • VladImpaler on 30/09/2026 - 16:20

    The RBA only has 1 lever, it doesn't have other powers.

    Should it have more? Should it's remit be changed? Yes and yes.

    There has always been the perverse irony of their decisions punishing the people least likely to have caused the issue. Not to mention their disregard of the human costs of their goals of increasing the ranks of the unemployed.

    • 6
    • Cognitive Consonance on 30/09/2026 - 16:54

      I would like to partially disagree with you, because the general consensus in a straightforward google enquiry say the Reserve Bank move to an Inflation control modeling the early 90's.
      Remember Keating's "recession we had to have".
      But it also refers to "money supply" etc prior to that, and I can't figure out how it worked.
      Nonetheless, in the following 35 years, the money people have figured out how to game the system/bureaucrats

      • 2
  • R4 on 30/09/2026 - 20:00

    Yet a majority on OzB (which is very left-wing), think our clown level government is the bollocks.
    Bizarre.

    • 6
  • Yummy on 30/09/2026 - 17:14

    Consumers are still being blamed for inflation

    OzB'ers fault for spending too much on Amazon deals:
    -Albo-

    • 5
    • welcomeUniverseWorld on 30/09/2026 - 23:33

      The RBA currently identifies several inflationary forces: global energy/oil shocks, higher imported/input costs, weak productivity, domestic capacity constraints, labour costs, rents, and business-owner returns.

      Neither Albo nor RBA singled out the consumers!!!

      RBA seems to be pointing fingers towards Trump who is also very much loved by the albo-haters. It is very interesting.

      FYI: I an neutral. I go to vote because of sausage sizzle and because I will be fined if I don’t vote

      • 2
      • Rick Sanchez on 02/10/2026 - 02:00

        Sorry, you're a "leftie" now. I don't make the rules.

        • 0
  • Maxxjet on 30/09/2026 - 21:34

    NDIS has to be totally reviewed to stop the fraud and save as much as it can be… is it nice? not at all, to make it sustainable especailly if you cannot afford it, don't pretend to be able to.

    • 5
    • welcomeUniverseWorld on 30/09/2026 - 23:23

      Sir, this is wendy’s! You looking for NDIS-Mac? Are you lost?

      • 0
  • Yiddos on 30/09/2026 - 23:05

    We are in the cycle of decline, whatever way you and I see it. And it all points to one thing - the culture of greed.

    • 5
  • gentlekoala5906 on 01/10/2026 - 03:37

    Too many wealthy retirees with no mortgage means interest rates don't impact them, and thus it's not bringing down inflation.

    • 5
    • [Deactivated] on 01/10/2026 - 07:10

      Too many Gen Z living at home earning good dollars locked out of housing market, so spending up.
      50% in their 20's still living at home.

      • 2
    • JIMB0 on 01/10/2026 - 06:53

      Better to spend it than leave it in the bank for inflation to chip away at it.

      • 1
  • Jaduqimon on 30/09/2026 - 14:33

    Or course consumers are to blame. Have you seen barangaroo on a friday evening?

    • 4
    • Onemoredeal on 30/09/2026 - 15:03

      Are thousands of bankers really a good litmus test of financial impacts of inflation and interest rates

      • 0
    • orangetrain on 30/09/2026 - 20:41

      Just Friday drinks with a 15 min walk from RBA HQ

      • 0
    • Wiadro on 30/09/2026 - 14:38

      theres no RAM TRX friendly parking options there, so i havent, maybe i should bring the lambo instead as it maybe easier to park around there

      • -5
      • Jaduqimon on 30/09/2026 - 14:39

        fake. real lambo owners park anywhere and just cop the fine.

        • 3
  • jv on 30/09/2026 - 16:28

    Curious

    How does increasing interest paid to banks reduce government spending or fuel prices???

    • 4
    • [Deactivated] on 30/09/2026 - 16:33

      Question 2

      Do they really think those with a mortgage are the ones spending and increasing inflation?

      • 7
      • bargain-dev on 01/10/2026 - 10:55

        It doesnt matter whos spending - the RBA is interested in aggregate demand. Or in other words, total spending across an economy. If you crush homeowners and they spend less, they've lowered aggregate demand and therefore relieve pressure on inflation.

        • 1
    • Cognitive Consonance on 30/09/2026 - 16:44

      I can hear the banks now "Absolutely, giving us other people's money will fix the economy"

      • 2
    • welcomeUniverseWorld on 30/09/2026 - 23:31

      higher interest rates do not directly reduce government spending, and they do not directly reduce petrol prices. They work mainly by suppressing private-sector demand

      The RBA does not control Commonwealth or state government spending.

      Interest rates are monetary policy, controlled by the RBA. Government taxation and expenditure are fiscal policy, controlled by governments and parliaments.

      So if governments significantly increase expenditure while the RBA is simultaneously trying to suppress demand, the policies can partly work against each other.

      • 1
      • JIMB0 on 30/09/2026 - 23:33

        The RBA should go harder on the rate rises. Give it a proper 0.5% bump up.

        • 3
        • welcomeUniverseWorld on 30/09/2026 - 23:42

          I don’t think they can do that either. They boil the water slowly always.

          • 2
        • kid-vhee on 01/10/2026 - 13:57

          Economic policies have lagging indicators and generally take time to take affect. While cash rate is considered quick, the effects takes a while to be reflected in economic indicators available.

          Cash rate also represent the opportunity cost of investments/government and private bonds. While households will be impacted immediately, hopefully it'll help curb the increasing capital expednitures.

          However most of the recent costs are due to supply disruptions in the market.

          • 0
    • bargain-dev on 01/10/2026 - 10:54

      Because the bank has excess cash sitting in exchange settlement accounts. If the bank can get 4.60% interest from the most creditworthy institution in Australia, that naturally means that anyone else they lend to need to pay a premium above that. When you lift that cash rate, who a bank lends to then needs to pay more to justify that lending occuring.

      Banks live on net interest margins. If they target 50bps on a home loan for instance, they'll lift whatever the rate is on a homeloan to keep that NIM the same.

      • 0
  • Lunarboogie on 30/09/2026 - 21:48

    The RBA's hands are tied when you have a grey army imune to rate risee and spending like there's no tomorrow. So it has to crack down even harder on working age people with mortgages. How can they expect to slow the economy by targeting only 1/3 of the population.

    The fairest way around this is to start taxing superannuants over 60. The game has changed since super was designed 34 years ago. The explosion of an elderly brahmin class who sit with piles of cash and real estate yet pay little in taxes is becoming indefensible. In fact, it's downright discriminatory. It's time they started paying their share. If not, it'll be working age people who will continue to bear the brunt.

    • 4
    • Cognitive Consonance on 30/09/2026 - 21:58

      "elderly brahmin class who sit with piles of cash and real estate yet pay little in taxes is becoming indefensible"
      That's Allahbanese and his minions stirring another hate group, so he can pillage whatever assets old people own.
      Don't forget these people paid taxes their entire lives, and never got anything ftom the government except child endowment.
      That was when birth was considered a good way to grow our country.
      Now we put potential mothers to work to pay egregious mortgages, and build the country by importing placeholders "citizens" in the hope they will integrate.
      That way we can have a proper multicultural country, instead of the fractured hatred that governments love to foment for voting blocs

      • 2
    • Iwantthebestprice on 30/09/2026 - 22:03

      This is the most stupid response I’ve seen, and this says alot with some of the comments on here. Imagine changing the tax rules on super to try and stop flooding the economy with money. Guess what any sane person who currently salary sacrifices extra income into their super would do, stop that immediately! Way to try and solve a problem by targeting one class but then terrifying a whole other class and keeping their money out of the super ecosystem and in the economy!
      If the government made such a reckless change to super, I, and many others I’m sure, would not trust that my super would be mine or could even possibly be seized for government debt payments when I retire in 35 years, and I definitely wouldn’t be moving an extra $20K a year into it.

      • 2
      • tenpercent on 30/09/2026 - 23:41

        I, and many others I’m sure, would not trust that my super would be mine or could even possibly be seized for government debt payments when I retire in 35 years, and I definitely wouldn’t be moving an extra $20K a year into it.

        What's all this about "my" super? It's a "national(ised) asset", mate. /s

        • 2
      • Lunarboogie on 01/10/2026 - 08:16

        I get it paying tax would be confronting for superannuants. But what is the alternative? Crushing working age people to pay the country's bills? According the latest inter generation report, by 2066 roughly 1 in 4 people will be over 60, sitting on enormous super balances following careers earning the 12% super guarantee. The math doesn’t math. If you think this future group will get today's generous conditions that superannuants receive you’re kidding yourself. Changes are coming. The demographics rarely lie.

        • 2
      • Cognitive Consonance on 01/10/2026 - 11:41

        "This is the most stupid response I’ve seen" is not really the way to present a contradictory opinion.
        You may be right, but your opening statement is so definitive about your view, why would anyone argue your point.
        Your opening attack makes the rest of your post just a word salad
        Everyone is talking their own world view. Listen.
        Most "Boomers" struggle to preserve their hard worked and won lifestyle.
        They see the Government and the next generation trying to steal Boomer assets and give it to them

        • 1
        • tenpercent on 01/10/2026 - 20:51

          They see the Government … trying to steal Boomer assets and give it to them

          The current Government is grandfathering Boomers and Gen X, not trying to steal their assets. None of the 3 major parties will dare do that.

          Let's review their entire lives:

          • Free university.
            — Ladder pulled up once they were all through that stage of life.
          • Generous pension schemes, e.g. 75% of final salary every year from age 59 onwards indexed to CPI. No contributions or personal investment required.
            — Ditched and replaced with our current superannuation system which is effectively user pays. If you were already in one of those schemes (such an apt word) then you were grandfathered in.
          • Generous 50% CGT discounting and negative gearing.
            — Ditched but if you were already in you were grandfathered.
          • Inherited an economy that supported single income households to afford to buy their own home.
            — Ditched that. Now mum and dad both have to work for the privilege of struggling to afford even the cheapest house in a capital city where the jobs are. The country was flooded with migration to inflate house prices and Boomers and Gen X rode the upswing and became property multi-millionaires along the way by sheer luck of when they were born.

          And, to echo another commenter, if you made it through all of that and still don't have much to show for it, now put yourself in the shoes of one of those younger generations and imagine how well you would do.

          They see … the next generation trying to steal Boomer assets and give it to them

          Are you talking about your kids?
          Jokes aside, the next generations aren't trying to steal Boomer assets, for the most part (some Greens and random socialist fringe dwellers excepted).
          Some just want Boomers and other retirees to pay for their own lifestyles themselves. If someone has, for example, a million dollar 4 bedroom house in their retirement you don't need aged pension. You have a number of options available to you before you resort to that. Aged pension is supposed to be a backstop for the most needy so they aren't completely destitute; although there are some recipients who do live in destitution because the rate of payment for age pension is too low only because the pot is being shared around among too many recipients who don't need it. Just like other Centrelink payments ought to be, and for the most part are, for people in desperate need.
          Some also want superannuants to pay income tax on their income just like everyone else earning an income. Let's be honest, they'll probably be contributing less than they're using in government subsidised healthcare costs alone.

          • 5
          • Cognitive Consonance on 01/10/2026 - 21:04

            @tenpercent: Free university - never got that, to busy working.
            Generous Pension schemes - small business, don't know about 75% anything
            Super - bugger all, expected a gain from small business sales but Lockdowns killed that.
            50% CGT - on What?
            Single invome households - completely agree

            If only pensioers could get NDIS

            • -3
        • rumblytangara on 01/10/2026 - 22:18

          This new account accusing someone else of word salad is a bit rich. Like a creamy mayonnaise.

          • 3
  • LFO on 01/10/2026 - 09:38

    Consumers are still being blamed for inflation, and have to carry the load for it.

    Consumers accept to pay more. Full stop.

    Fuel prices are rocketing yet petrol guzzlers are still seen everywhere and sold as hot cakes.
    Houses, travel, everything.
    Not a hint of restrain.

    Any comment I made about "why this is more expensive than yesterday" (like Coles/Woolies cooked chooks) I got the dreaded mantra "well, it is the inflation"

    Self fulfilling prophecy to its best.

    • 4
  • onesandtwos on 01/10/2026 - 11:40

    Government spending is messed up, consumerism is rife, we have too many migrants.. I can't believe that so few here also talking about corporate profits?? RBA in 2023. https://share.google/gpFhg72JS1TS25evb

    • 4
    • Cognitive Consonance on 01/10/2026 - 11:47

      That's because not many of us know about the economic impacts of corporate profits.
      Why don't you just present a simple explanation.
      You are right on your other points.
      Like I feel right to vote in my electorate for whoever Hanson puts up for the next election.
      Not that I expect her to govern or even get some sort of minority, but she has already forced both parties to address immigration.
      That is not a polotical opinion waiting to be slandered.
      It is an invitation to debate the view

      • -5
      • onesandtwos on 01/10/2026 - 18:08

        To be clear, those initial things I mentioned are me paraphrasing what this discussion thread have broadly diagnosed, I think it's far far more nuanced than that.

        Regarding corporate profits, or profits in general, I am merely pointing out that they are clearly a factor. If businesses generally take the same profit percentage by maintaining margins and passing costs onto consumers, then this is inflationary. Sometimes the next 'consumer' in that chain is another business, who is likely also passing that cost on. And so on, until the actual end consumer who can no longer do anything about it, just has to lump it.

        • 1
      • onesandtwos on 01/10/2026 - 18:11

        Posted before I finished. This got released recently by the RBA. https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2026/aug/an-inp… have a read through/put through ChatGPT or Perplexity or whatever, but certainly there's plenty of analysis out there.

        • 1
        • Cognitive Consonance on 01/10/2026 - 18:32

          There's my Achilles heel. I see anything from the government to be totally self serving.
          eg "For example, the introduction of government electricity bill rebates for households over recent years lowered measured electricity prices in the CPI as households paid less for the same quantity of electricity."
          On what planet? they talk about a simple example in the production of a loaf of bread.
          While a bakery may produce and sell the final product, the bakery requires inputs from a range of other industries to operate, including agriculture (to supply wheat), utilities (to supply electricity), logistics (to transport goods from suppliers) and business services (to provide bookkeeping services). Different industries typically use different combinations of inputs as some goods and services require more capital to produce (e.g. electricity generation relies on a range of physical capital such as power stations), while others require more labour. Labour may also not be substitutable across industries and the balance of labour supply and labour demand may vary by industry such that labour costs may evolve differently across industries.
          A loaf of white bread has been 680g since Adam was a boy., and the input cost are fundamentally the same.
          Why are public services part of GDP, when I see (most of ) them as nonproductive costs

          • 1
          • onesandtwos on 02/10/2026 - 11:29

            @Cognitive Consonance: RBA is technically independent. Inflation means that our money is worth less over time, so that statement is factual. Does it make much of a difference to people? No, given most are smashed on different sides. It was the government trying to keep inflation numbers down to try to avoid RBA moving on rates, as my read.

            GDP is just a measure, but the question is if it actually meaningfully tracks with reality… Actually when GDP was conceived, it thought that defence/war shouldn't be included. https://conversableeconomist.com/2019/02/05/why-did-simon-ku… there's arguments to be had that actually we should count household works too.

            • 0
  • welcomeUniverseWorld on 30/09/2026 - 23:29

    It’s too little too late.

    The RBA will likely raise rates at least three more times in the near future. Until inflation comes down, rate hikes are necessary.

    The problem is the Ponzi housing market that lured people with negative gearing into taking on huge loans and now they’re stuck. With great leverage comes great responsibility. There’s no other way.

    These rate rises are carefully controlled. There’s always a silver lining.. Perhaps another year of rate rises is still necessary.

    • 3
  • dajiska on 01/10/2026 - 20:55

    Another rate rise will happen…….yes as gov are spending more….consumers are spending way too much….but wait consumers has to pay for goods/services as everything has gone up!…….but wait…..its just a ripple effect!

    • 3
  • movieman on 01/10/2026 - 22:05

    Unfortunately I think it's been designed this way… Keep the working class working, reign in on whatever opportunities arise, and yet, somehow it's the general population's fault.

    What's the real intention in the background? Uzbekistan didn't seem to have been hit very hard by inflation - wonder why it's a Western phenomenon.

    • 3
    • JIMB0 on 02/10/2026 - 08:16

      It's how they keep everyone behaving. You just need to work hard and save so that you can escape the system.

      • 1
  • arescarti42 on 02/10/2026 - 13:36

    Yeah! What would the RBA know?!

    They've only got hundreds of Australia's best economists and decades of experience fighting inflation. Seriously, how hard can it be to manage a $2 trillion trade exposed economy facing a global inflation shock? It's not exactly rocket science.

    Barely literate randos spouting off on the internet - that's who we should be listening to.

    • 3
  • duluxe2000 on 01/10/2026 - 09:44

    RBA does what RBA has to do. If we are not talking about the elephants in the room here : the gov spending . Yes you can blame the war on Iran but what can you do about it ? Your shorted sightness of not having oil refinery ? Decades of riding on resources export, busy distributing wealth without building it ?

    The gov spending is the result of what Australia wants/wanted, they want age care, care service, ndis, thinking the dirt they dig out from the ground will last forever.

    I blame an entire generation for this, they got what they wanted. There was good times. Now hard time comes the next generation has to pay, and in turn breeding a new kind of government/politician which hopefully focus on building wealth rather than busy distributing it. But there will be hard time, and this is not the end.

    • 2
  • dufflover on 01/10/2026 - 10:54

    Always thought Lowe was a horrible communicator esp with that quote but Bullock hasn't done much better.

    Similar to jv's earlier comment, still waiting on how a rate rise is going to stop Coles, Woolies, servos, etc. jacking up the prices due to supply side issues like fuel, electricity, or just-because regardless. The money being taken out of people with the mortgages isn't going to stop that spending, the increased prices already taking out disposable income. And I find usually prices don't slow down, businesses just end up closing instead. Look at construction, all those retailers like Lincraft, Cue, etc.

    Ironically don't think they have taken any responsibility to call out the inflation they have helped to trigger with their credit card changes.

    • 2
    • ttt888 on 02/10/2026 - 15:23

      In other words, for interest rates to lower inflation , it needs to be high enough to collapse the economy until people can barely buy food… That's the only way it could work.

      Today's world we young people earning really good income and little commitments they don't care they will just spend and the private sector will just continue to increase their prices.

      • 1
  • kid-vhee on 01/10/2026 - 13:52

    People making this political - It's a very mixed combination of economic factors. To simply put it:

    Economic Trilemma: Fixed Exchange Rate, Monetary Policy, and free flow of Capital - Australia uses Monetary and Free Flow of Capital.

    Post Covid Inflation shock,
    Postitive growths in past decade, economic cycles happens, a slight recession may need to be considered (economic necessary evil - market adjustment, changes and efficiencies improvements)
    AI Disruption - High Capex Expenditures and the money cycle factor would be considered lower (generates minimal long term jobs, or possible lower ROI).
    Oil Supply Shock, Oil feeds plastic, diesel, transport, energy, pharmacetucials (everything),
    Australia being remote, oil feeds into a lot of our supply chain.

    • 2
Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join