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.
    • Cognitive Consonance on 01/10/2026 - 14:50

      Thanks for your post. I love a debate with someone who knows something
      Glad you mentioned Exchange rates. Renmimbi/$A was about 5:1 in 1990 and now close to 7:0.
      As China went from an agrarian economy to an industrial powerhouse, their currency got 30% cheaper. How is that possible?
      I find the oil thing amazing, starting with the fact that in a decade of Ukranian war, not a single pipeline across the country has been disabled, except a small diverison into Monrovia, I think, and forget Nordstream.
      Last Week's story, or call it a Conspiracy theory, (but that is not the point), was that the globalists who run the EU had funded Ukraine to blow up Russian oil refineries, which have forever exported as much oil as they like to India and China, despite sanctions.
      So those two countries are now forced into the Middle east Oil market, and that is what is driving prices up, not Trump
      Was that the objective? I will welcome it being discredited, bu tno Ad hom attacks please.
      AI - possible lower ROI? No one is near making a buck from it. Where's the money coming from? If it's superfunds, there's a payday for someone else
      I reiterate, I am not here to get into an argument on a topics most of us have only superficial knowledge.

      • 0
      • kid-vhee on 01/10/2026 - 16:04

        Keeping poltical attacks on the low;

        China chooses current economics chooses to set interests (monetary) and influence Forex markets to control currency pricing. They have restricted and control flow of capital in exchange.

        Oil pricing and demand my judgement is that Supply pricing is heavily influenced and controlled by global factors outside of Australia.

        Two factors, pricing will always reflect global prices, as if we had local refineries, companies would rather sell overseas if it fetched higher dollar than locally. So you know, open market and free to capitalise on global supply shock.

        Second factor is - sanctions and supply. They have create localised cost differences. Theres known massive $bn marker for sanctioned supply of oil, and reports that petrol/diesel prices in Iran are so low and abundant. Iran and Russia have been feeding China and India to cheaper oil alternatives. My understanding of the sanctions was made in place with UAE to control oil prices and supply & demand as Iran didn't agree to the control (FACT check needed - the adage USA is a oil company with military forces). Also China's reliance on oil as part of their state planning has always been on a reduction (on overall %) they have quickly adopt reneweables and nuclear, with somewhat 5+ nuclear power plants in constructions.

        Unsure why Australia has left the structural changes to minimal reserves or even offloading reserves to other nations despite International Energy Agency recommendations - and we've seen locally in Australia that is also impacting mainly households. (Mines I've heard are fairly 'immune' with tanks of diesel in every camp and site, and machines idling like diesel is nothing).

        But oil is only one factor we're considering here.

        AI economy is interesting, and would be fairly simplified to be described as circular economy. But the recent rise and push for datacentres are pushing high capital costs. AI datacentres take up 3-10x more power than standard datacentre, require massive cooling (whether they want water mains or recycled water) infrasturcutree is quite lacking. And once they're up - only generate 2-3 job roles to maintain them.

        Immigration was also mentioned in previous topic, but Australia and other developing countries have encountered the issue of reducing natural birthrates. We need population growth for simple to growth. If population was to decrease, the resources and time to recover from unfufilled job while markets/companies have to descale. But this obviously is political - how do we know how much to allow to immigrate, and who. And the economics/politics of homes - primarly driven by state and local red tapes slowing the industry down.

        Economics is pretty unfair here, recessions can be harsh and sharp, but growth is always steady and slow (same with interests rates, easy to go up, but harder to push it down).

        My summary is; Energy crisis, Tech Disruption, Societal growth & population. Sometimes the idea of Australia as 'lucky country' really does strike hard to its core. But the values of fairness and equity is our strong part I'd say.

        • 3
        • Cognitive Consonance on 01/10/2026 - 18:43

          Immigration is interesting. If you know anyone with a Grrek Maltese Italian or Northern European name, there is a fair chance they came from WW2 refugees looking for a better life. They came and worked in the lowest category of labour, with doctors lawyers etc digging ditches.
          But in the process, we built the Snowy, and the Murrumbidgee Irrigation schemes, a magnificant nation building project.
          The Vietnamese in 1970's also found their own way.
          Todays migrants are coming for the money. How can that nation build?

          • 0
          • kid-vhee on 02/10/2026 - 12:45

            @Cognitive Consonance: The movement of people from lower economic developed countries to leading OECD is always reported because many of the people from those countries are worse off, and normally try to improve life conditions for future generations. The 'money' they chase is normally only seen by long hours or working double jobs, but for them, the opportunity was better than they had in their home country.

            Would be good to see statistic on long-term migration and the jobs they're fufulling, or the number of acceptance based on what Subclass they come in on - which we always had numbers/quota limits on each type. Unsure on the humanitarian side, and doubt Australia accepts many. But on the flipside, I could easily critique citizen and dole bludgers on poor work ethics.

            Australia has always a smaller population than our OECD counterpart but higher GDP because of the mining sector we have.

            However it's also noted, Australia has some of the strongest VISA requirements, high costs, and acceptance

            There are obviously the rich millionaires/overseas student that do come over - however they are a minority and wouldn't affect the structural issues developed in our economies today.

            TLDR; generalisation hurts and creates assumptions. Headline and blanket claims don't solve problems.

            • 3
          • Rick Sanchez on 02/10/2026 - 01:45

            @Cognitive Consonance: In today's world money IS better life. Increase your earnings or you'll have no freedom.
            Anyway read the rest of their comment as they've raised some very good points.

            • 1
            • kid-vhee on 02/10/2026 - 12:50

              @Rick Sanchez: Agree, generally more money improves standards of life. But we need to ensure we also check other measures. Access to homes, education and healthcare. Sometimes we fixate on the quantitative measure, and need to ensure if our qualitative measures are improving.

              The gap between lower and middle class changes livelyhood, choices and opportunity massively.

              If countries ran on GDP per capita, but don't look at wealth distribution, or GDP growth, but don't look at productivity or efficiencies, the numbers don't mean much. Like turnover without checking profit margin.

              • 2
          • onesandtwos on 02/10/2026 - 11:51

            @Cognitive Consonance: There have been a steady stream of English etc people who have come through, or Kiwis etc, they have consistently not been refugees and yet undoubtedly have contributed to our country and nation-building. We simply do not do very many visionary (and admittedly expensive) projects anymore.

            • 1
    • arkie0 on 02/10/2026 - 14:39

      It's political because Albanese has presided over 16 rate increases.
      Before him Abbott+Turnbull+Morrission presided over 1 rate increase.
      Rudd+Gillard era was 9 increases.

      • 0
      • kid-vhee on 05/10/2026 - 13:33

        Won't deny those numbers, but you know, correlation isn't causation.

        Having some understanding behind the numbers and nuances. The previous government presided over the emergency COVID drop down to 0.10%. Moving back up from an artificial floor naturally takes a high number of small step-up hikes.

        The other events of coming out of GFC will see numbers of steps to go along with ECONOMIC CYCLES, not to do with federal policies.

        Economic have lagging affects, some policy changes done by either parties in a 4 year term can carry-on to the new party, and cash rates will go accordingly. Just naming cash rates with whose party at the time isn't true. It would be amazing if a policy had instant effect and desired outcomes they're intended for.

        TLDR; When in recession or or global pandemic and where economies at lowest, cash rate drops effectively to 0. When economies starting picking up, naturally cash rates steps up slowly. nothing to do with parties in control - INDEPEDENT Central bank.

        • 2
        • arkie0 on 05/10/2026 - 14:35

          correlation isn't causation

          Correct but that's not the argument. The argument is that government fiscal policy affects the economic conditions to which the RBA responds to. The RBA itself says fiscal policy affects aggregate demand and aggregate demand affects inflation.

          Take Victoria as an example, Victoria has had the same state government for roughly 12 years across multiple economic cycles. It's accumulated a very large debt and due to infrastructure spending and 26-27 budget forecasts net debt rising from $150.9 billion in 2024–25 to $199.3 billion by 2029–30.

          Hypothetically, if the RBA could isolate Victoria from the rest of Australia, what monetary-policy lever would the RBA pull?

          My point is the RBA doesn't care which political party caused the demand. It only needs to see demand exceeding supply and inflationary pressure. It then uses the one major lever it controls — monetary policy. It just so happens one political party generally causes more demand than another regardless of cycle as per Victoria.

          • 0
          • kid-vhee on 05/10/2026 - 15:10

            @arkie0: Agreed, but your comments make it sounds it's political party attribution with Federal budget and debt and the cash rate.

            While Federal and Monetary policy are fairly co-dependent and reactive to economic conditions, they have patterns aligned with appropriate economic cycle. Both parties spent lots (Coalition during covid with necessary stimulus and job keeper, or Labor's post GFC). The attribution to these expenditure should only be considered if the policy employed where effective and or equitable to the general population.

            Can't speak for VIC, and have heard story of the massive allegations and mismangement of their state budget, but the idea of a centralised bank to manage whole economy does pose obviously localised concerns.

            But could you imagine if each state had it's own cash rate, interstate migration or businesses working interstate would just pack up and move business, making state cash rates impractical.

            • 2
      • tenpercent on 04/10/2026 - 13:36

        It's almost a pattern.

        • -1
  • rumblytangara on 01/10/2026 - 19:35

    Consumers are still being blamed for inflation,

    First statement was 100% wrong, no point reading the rest of that garbage.

    Want to be taken serious? Don't be utterly wrong in the first thing you say on a new account.

    • 2
    • tenpercent on 01/10/2026 - 21:02

      If you don't blame consumers for inflation, why target them to 'fix' it?

      • 2
    • Cognitive Consonance on 01/10/2026 - 20:46

      Thanks for your input, but it would help if you could articulate even a single sentence about what is right to help me.
      If you had continued to read it may have been that I was exactly mirroring your point of view.
      But alas, we will never know

      • -1
      • rumblytangara on 01/10/2026 - 20:47

        Nobody blames consumers for inflation. Look at fuel prices or half a decade of government monetary policy.

        • 2
        • Cognitive Consonance on 01/10/2026 - 21:09

          See, that's what you get when you go off before reading

          • 0
          • rumblytangara on 01/10/2026 - 21:19

            @Cognitive Consonance: Then learn to write something worth reading.

            Internet heuristic for random crap- first half a dozen words are wrong, stop reading.

            • 2
            • Cognitive Consonance on 02/10/2026 - 06:19

              @rumblytangara: Maybe you could learn to read something before commenting.
              All you are doing is hijacking the thread

              • 0
              • rumblytangara on 02/10/2026 - 09:27

                @Cognitive Consonance: Maybe you could take some writing classes. You can do that online these days.

                All you are doing is hijacking the thread

                You reap what you sew IRL and online. Start with shit, end with shit. Start with quality, you get quality replies.

                Edit: A quick scan of the rest of the thread seems to back up this point of view.

                • 1
  • Dack Smith on 02/10/2026 - 18:26

    Australians spending too much on unnecessary luxuries, governments not spending enough in crucial areas like NDIS and First Nation affairs, just massively pork barreling their own electorates and wasting money.

    The rates had to go up.

    People are just bargain crazy

    • 2
  • wallet72 on 30/09/2026 - 15:29

    I remember there's a reason it can't be practically done, but why doesn't the mandatory contribution to super go up instead of interest rates?

    • 1
    • brendanm on 30/09/2026 - 18:15

      How are they the same thing?

      • 0
      • us3rnam3tak3n on 01/10/2026 - 12:44

        They're not the same thing but they both have the effect of reducing spending.

        Transferring a higher proportion of wages into superannuation will affect all wage earners. Increasing interest rates affects anyone with debt which inhibits company growth as well as individuals with mortgages.

        • 0
        • tenpercent on 01/10/2026 - 20:14

          So your plan is to only target people earning their income from employment?
          People living off interest earnings, dividends, drawing down savings, drawing down superannuation - all completely insulated from your policy.
          That sounds like you've expanded the group of people unaffected.

          • 0
  • [Deactivated] on 30/09/2026 - 15:38

    took 1:21 ^ having a nana nap lol

    • 1
  • Benoffie on 30/09/2026 - 17:48

    You could look at it another way.

    Bullock previously was more forward in the beginning of her tenure but there was a noticeable shift in rhetoric last year.

    Now Lowe is outright blaming Chalmers.

    The RBA, after giving its advice have obviously been ignored.

    What's the one legitimate play they can do to upset the political applecart, cause electoral mischief but still remain within their purvue?

    2 rate rises before Christmas, within the 18 month mark of the first possible election period.

    😈

    • 1
    • Rysta on 30/09/2026 - 18:05

      Lowe keeping interest rates too low for too long is a major reason behind the inflation, his comments in an interview with a propaganda outlet aren't worth listening to.

      • 2
      • Benoffie on 30/09/2026 - 18:47

        And that's part of a bigger discussion about the real independence of the RBA and their ability to move sans Treasury

        • 0
      • smartazz104 on 02/10/2026 - 11:00

        His name isn't Lowe for nothing.

        • 0
    • tenpercent on 30/09/2026 - 18:16
      Albo's Austerity Christmas
      • 0
  • Dunks on 30/09/2026 - 23:04

    Sick and tired of the Albo government taking no responsibility.

    Stop spending money, slow immigration. Easy fix.

    Instead it's always, war or the libs or someone else's fault

    • 1
    • johnno07 on 01/10/2026 - 07:24

      Stop spending money, slow immigration. Easy fix.

      Unreal that you get a vote.

      • 9
      • tenpercent on 01/10/2026 - 21:04

        Where do you think the marginal increase in spending is coming from? And why are interest rates the best way to address it?

        • 1
        • johnno07 on 01/10/2026 - 19:09

          Political leaning has nothing to do with it. Telling a government to "stop spending money, easy" is so absolutely ridiculous that I kind of regret even responding.

          • 5
          • Rick Sanchez on 02/10/2026 - 01:50

            @johnno07: These posts make me realise that comprehension is at an all time low.

            • 5
        • smartazz104 on 02/10/2026 - 11:09

          Okay lefty…

          More septic brainrot.

          • 1
    • DesiredUsername on 02/10/2026 - 09:26

      80% of the federal budget is spent on Welfare, Education, Defence and Health.

      Considering that our population is aging and we are heading to more and more uncertain geopolitical times, i don't see any of those costs decreasing anytime soon.

      Western economies around the world are all in the same boat, offered generous social programs off the back of WW2 and through the 60s/70s booms. Were in great financial positions late 90s/early 00s and squandered it on tax cuts.

      • 5
    • welcomeUniverseWorld on 30/09/2026 - 23:25

      Were you excited about albo when he got elected? If not, you would still be feeling shit?

      • 1
  • AustriaBargain on 01/10/2026 - 04:30

    I'm waiting to hear what Dave Hughs thinks of it.

    • 1
    • Nugs on 01/10/2026 - 10:25

      is that pronounced hugs?
      .

      • 1
  • markb28 on 02/10/2026 - 12:08

    In truth, controlling inflation through interest rates is limited when people are cutting down on spending anyway. In honesty, it's the only lever the RBA has.
    Right now, those with savings are getting great rates.
    Mortgage holders less so.
    The main drivers of inflation are uncontrolled fuel costs caused by war, the one the US started and the one that the US seems to be assisting Russia with.
    Add tariffs, AI data centres and chipsets driving electronics sky high (again mainly caused by the US).
    Middle nations like Australia and Canada getting the brunt of impact.

    No party has an answer to these, Angus and Pauline can blow hard, they are both clueless and in the case of Pauline, thick as bricks.
    US regime change is urgently needed, Scomo giving us AUKUS was a bad move, France is a much more reliable ally.

    • 1
    • Cognitive Consonance on 02/10/2026 - 13:26

      Political opinion, convenient but superficial

      • 1
    • prozerran on 02/10/2026 - 14:09

      So the billions of spending on NDIS and rate cuts are not fueling inflation?

      Running a budget deficit by definition means you are spending more than you earn - ie inflationary.

      • 1
  • BeoWulf on 02/10/2026 - 20:22

    At this point, the only party that will take my vote is the one taxing or fining corporations for offshoring office jobs.

    • 1
    • Cognitive Consonance on 02/10/2026 - 21:38

      Is this going to be like the car industry, where the union fatcats shed their crocodile tears as they abandon their members

      • 0
      • BeoWulf on 03/10/2026 - 07:16

        The car industry was too small. The Telco, Finance, IT industry in Australia affects far more people. All jobs apart from front office roles are getting offshored to our favourite country starting with the letter "i“. At this rate, even highly experienced employees are feeling the brunt. Every major bank including the foreign ones（GS,MS,JPM etc) have offshored most of their support staff(operations, risk, tax, compliance, IT etc). At this rate, having a PHD let alone a bachelor's degree is going to be useless.

        • 2
        • Cognitive Consonance on 03/10/2026 - 09:12

          You make a good point, but surely the car industry was underpinned by our Country's need to keep a manufacturing capability for defence purposes, like Britain France, Germany Spain Italy Czech Republic, Sweden.
          You can bet everone of these is subsidised to the hilt.
          Coles/Kmart started sending their Accounts payable to India at least 15 years ago.
          But this is another topic that needs wide ranging inputs devoid of political ranting.
          Ever since Adam ? invented the wheel, we have found or floundered into ways to reinvent civilization
          Look at what will happen with lawyers. Exporting jobs will never work there, but AI will put the 80% idiot savants out of work

          • 0
    • monky on 02/10/2026 - 22:13

      I don't even think the Greens are dumb/confident enough to platform that one… One step at a time, comrade.

      • 0
      • BeoWulf on 03/10/2026 - 07:25

        Why would you ever think that the Greens would propose this? They don't care about Australia let alone the middle class. They are a bunch of misfit weirdos.

        • 1
        • monky on 03/10/2026 - 16:19

          Because if you had to, you can, and in my opinion, should platform and enact government-legislated national trade-and-worker protectionism inside the purview of a real worker's party.

          Why do I think they would propose this? I don't, which is why I chose the first four words of my comment.

          • -1
  • klaw81 on 03/10/2026 - 12:51

    You can take the username away from Clickbait, but you can't take the clickbait out from the user.

    Consumers ARE actually spending more than they used to - not by choice, but because the demand for certain necessities isn't elastic. People pay whatever it costs for food, housing and petrol, not because they have plenty of disposable income to spend but because they have few alternatives.

    It's also worth pointing out that there's a substantial cohort of wealthy (typically elderly) Australians who own their homes outright and for whome interest rates have little impact. Those people are not experiencing any issues with cost of living.

    So the Reserve Bank is correct, in a way.

    • 1
    • spc12go on 03/10/2026 - 12:57

      That section of people are not the ones spending, and once they pass the wealth will most likely to be pass to the next generation.

      Just watch for asset transfer tax next.

      • 0
      • qtr pounder on 09/10/2026 - 22:54

        That section of people are not the ones spending

        Disagree, they're spending like theres no tomorrow and there wont be any wealth left to pass on.

        • 0
  • geebi on 03/10/2026 - 13:18

    I don’t understand why people are so quick to jump on these fanciful ways of taming inflation.

    Interest rates are the least distorting way of achieving this as they both incentivise saving and reduce borrowing.

    Its not just mortgages affected but I think Australia has given up on having a real business economy and we just want to sell ever increasing houses to each other.

    • 1
    • Cognitive Consonance on 03/10/2026 - 13:41

      But but but, aren't the banks finding ever increasing ways to lend more and more to the punters.
      The value of houses hasn't increased, just the amount the banksters will lend
      Once, they employed a team of valuers to work out the value of the property.
      Now that team works out how much the buyer can afford at given test points, like Interest rate rises.
      That's why the default rate hasn't climbed yet.\
      The banksters have already covered for it

      • 0
      • geebi on 03/10/2026 - 14:47

        The economy is more than just housing.

        • 0
        • Cognitive Consonance on 03/10/2026 - 15:30

          Sure is, but the post is about interest rates, and the voters seem to think they are paying for someone else's spending.
          Your thoughts are valuable too

          • 0
  • screensaver on 30/09/2026 - 15:24

    should have been steady at 3% for the last 20 years so that savers could get a decent rate and borrowers got a fair rate.By making it so low that really pushed house prices up as they were borrowing cheap money and savers could only get a pittance.

    • 0
    • JIMB0 on 30/09/2026 - 15:43

      3% was the emergency low during the GFC.

      • 1
      • screensaver on 30/09/2026 - 19:48

        3% is not considered low

        • -4
  • welcomeUniverseWorld on 30/09/2026 - 18:35

    So… How far will the property price drop in near future?

    • 0
    • plmko on 30/09/2026 - 19:01

      Have they dropped? I saw a unit list for $700k but sell for $800k+.

      • 1
      • Jolakot on 30/09/2026 - 19:35

        I saw one list for $800k but sell for $700k, so they cancel each other out

        • 4
      • welcomeUniverseWorld on 30/09/2026 - 23:37

        The drop is negligible for first-home buyers. However, the high-end of town is feeling the pinch.

        • 1
    • Benoffie on 30/09/2026 - 18:51

      The question isn't how far will they fall but where did you enterthe market.

      • 0
      • welcomeUniverseWorld on 30/09/2026 - 23:36

        The question may be whether we allow new generation to enter the market or continue to inflate the ponzification!

        • 0
    • Cognitive Consonance on 30/09/2026 - 19:26

      Hard question. Hanson's pressure is forcing both parties to reduce immigration, and that will put the brakes on house building, and build a stock surplus at the same time. Prices will keep falling until that surplus is taken up.
      Keating's recession we had to have achieved about 15% drop, but it looks like we are near that point already

      • -3
      • gromit on 30/09/2026 - 21:11

        we are 300k+ houses short at the moment, you could stop immigration completely for 5 years and you still would not have a surplus, especially with home building rates plummeting.

        • 4
      • tenpercent on 30/09/2026 - 19:59

        One Nation has brought the dinosaurs to the table to reduce immigration. It's now being treated as a genuine problem by all sides of politics (except maybe the Greens and random socialists). Without them they would still be pushing the Big Australia At All Costs programme. But so far everything the party currently in power has done has been performative. They jacked the migration well above 300k for a few years, then brought it down to just a handful under 300k and say "hey look we've reduced migration, we can be populist too, please don't leave us, please come back". Meanwhile net overseas migration averaged about 200k per annum for the 12 years before Albo's ALP came to power.

        I also don't see how reduced migration will put the brakes on house building. None of the 3 major parties have included any restrictions or cuts to skilled migration intakes in their policies. At least One Nation and the ALP both say it should be demand driven.

        • 3
  • [Deactivated] on 30/09/2026 - 21:22

    The moustache has spoken

    • 0
  • Raj09 on 30/09/2026 - 21:44

    Is coming from supply shock. Fuel prices from the antics of orange man and from Ukraine and Russia war. Well the albo muppet gave more money to Ukraine to continue the endless war.

    Why? Why should Aussies sacrifice for a war which is not ours?

    • 0
    • Cognitive Consonance on 30/09/2026 - 21:50

      I don't want aspersions cast because of this comment, but welcome constructive opinions.
      My reading says the Globalists are funding Ukraine to blow up Russian Oil refineries.
      Russia's main customers are India and China, who are now pushing into the Middle East oil market.
      Globalists get war.

      • 1
      • JIMB0 on 30/09/2026 - 22:00

        What or who exactly is a ‘globalist’?

        • 0
      • haemolysis on 02/10/2026 - 13:10

        Far from trying to "blow up Russian Oil refineries", countries donating equipment to Ukraine did so with strict rules that Ukraine was not allowed to strike into Russia.

        It is only now that the munitions have dried up and Ukraine is left to it's own in-house drones that they've finally been permitted to do so: multiple years into the war…

        So that conspiracy narrative seems pretty half-baked.

        • 0
  • AndyRates on 01/10/2026 - 16:00

    Many people going to resort to armed robbery now that cost of living crisis getting worse

    • 0
    • JIMB0 on 01/10/2026 - 17:25

      What crisis? I’m a millennial, I’m doing fine and so is everyone I know. We all just live within our means.

      • -2
  • theacrat on 02/10/2026 - 11:29

    does the Reserve Bank not have to power to do anything except the same thing they have always done

    You shouldn't be allowed to comment on economics if you don't know this.

    • 0
    • Cognitive Consonance on 02/10/2026 - 13:12

      You left out the question mark at the end
      A question isn't a comment, but thank you for your valued input

      • 0
      • theacrat on 02/10/2026 - 13:23

        "Do I need to drink water btw here's what I think about nutrition" type question

        • -1
  • AndyRates on 02/10/2026 - 15:04

    What's the best way to survive this high interest economy?

    • 0
    • welcomeUniverseWorld on 02/10/2026 - 15:20

      Be a politician

      • 4
    • Cognitive Consonance on 02/10/2026 - 16:53

      Vote for Hanson . theacrat please read the rest
      Go back to 1990's whan a crazy politician named Don Chipp formed tha austrailan Democrats
      Short lived but he"made the bastards honest" for a while
      Hanson is just another necessary dunny brush for the political toilet

      • 0
      • monky on 02/10/2026 - 21:59

        MAAAATE… You just gave me an idea for a million-dollar product…

        • 0
        • Nugs on 04/10/2026 - 10:18

          red headed toilet brush?
          it would have to have a white body too
          .

          • 0
  • plmko on 03/10/2026 - 11:43

    A few months back the RBA said the Gov wasn't responsible. Now it's saying the Gov contributed. Which is it.

    Maybe don't react to headlines and look at trends.

    It's really not that bad if you've been disciplined since the 'good times'.

    But I don't expect the average person to that. Someone needs to lose unfortunately.

    • 0
    • spc12go on 03/10/2026 - 12:55

      Majority of households don’t pay mortgage according to ABS, Australia's housing tenure breakdown sits at approximately 35% with a mortgage, 32% owned outright, and 31% renting,
      Approximately 33% to 35% of Australian households carry some form of non-mortgage personal finance debt.

      So the interest lever is impacting 1/3 of the house hold, while 2/3 benefits from the rise of interest rate.

      Some wins and some loose.

      • 1
  • donotuse on 04/10/2026 - 09:39

    This is a good read:

    Why higher interest rates are the new normal

    Economists and market experts lately have predicted rising global interest rates in the long term, and that’s likely to mean we end up with higher rates in Australia.

    The causes are not only increasing inflation but also global “megatrends” as the rise of artificial intelligence, growing geopolitical conflict and decarbonisation.

    • 0
    • Cognitive Consonance on 04/10/2026 - 19:07

      April 2019 from World Economic Forum
      https://www.weforum.org/stories/equity-diversity-and-inclusi…
      I can deal with 7 years.

      • 1
      • donotuse on 04/10/2026 - 22:47

        and it's all those policies that led us to where we are today — too much stimulus causing runaway inflation that started in 2021-2022, and too much government debt that came with it keeps piling up and causing all sorts of bond yields shooting up.

        • 0
  • Nugs on 30/09/2026 - 16:57

    i still blame consumerism for our predicament, along with population growth
    .

    • -1
    • Cognitive Consonance on 30/09/2026 - 17:09

      Help me with this. For the last 20 years or so Coffee shops went broke on a daily basis.
      Now, the customers have skyrocketed, the prices have skyrocketed, the costs have skyrocketed, and they are still going broke.
      The only difference I see is that before the owners were able to pull out some cash,to stem government theft.
      Now the government and the banks account for and take a cut of every penny they make.
      That's only an opinion. I am not equipped to argue it.

      • 0
      • Nugs on 01/10/2026 - 10:24

        coffee shops - the costs have skyrocketed, probably the main reason for going under
        stem government theft - do you mean taxes? taxes pay for public services, whether it is done well or not is a different thing
        every penny they make - this not USbargain
        .

        • 0
      • onesandtwos on 01/10/2026 - 10:47

        Coffee shops have always gone broke because business owners may not always know how to run a business well, same as restaurants etc.

        • 0
  • hasselbladsnapper on 30/09/2026 - 22:03

    One factor that the Boomer generation are concerned about is the very high cost of residential care ……. the value of their homes are often only enough to fund their future care costs.

    The upcoming generations are in for a rude shock, as the Boomer generation have had to spend their remaining assets and their is little to hand on.

    The other consideration is now Chalmers has stuffed the property market - houses are declining in value, and at the same time the cost's of residential care will escalate due to the cost's for building is a disconnect, to the sale price of the Family Home !.

    Snake Chalmers and Albatross have stuffed the whole equation !!.

    • -1
    • Cognitive Consonance on 01/10/2026 - 21:07

      A little story about residential care. There is a breakeven point. When most people move in they have relatively minor issues, but most survive average 2.5 years. A bit of demenita sets in and all of a sudden a relatively self sufficient person needs a harness and two staff for simple toileting. How do they conatin these costs?

      • 0
  • AndyRates on 13/10/2026 - 15:29

    Is October going to increase once more ? Inflation is killing a lot of households and supermarkets like lmct+ and rs rewards help downward pressure on groceries

    • -1
Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join