I wouldnt pay to keep my money in the bank. What's the point in that. That's 20 ounces of silver.
RBA rate cut down to 0.5%
- Thread starter slavaja
- Start date
I reached my conclusion based upon the information those legally responsible for policy decisions in Australia have provided and have repeatedly asserted. Not on what a staff forum of UN workers think.
Last edited:
madaw1
Well-Known Member
But you have to pay the Bank some money for the privilege to keep them there...
Edit. He has withdrawn the money since then and converted to gold before gold took of....
madaw1
Well-Known Member
Ahhh, ok. Because legal responsibilities translates to instant credibility by default, got it. And here I was thinking you had poorly founded "Evidence".
Conveniently, this video from CEC just came out about negative rates and the cash ban bill.
^
Wow! I didn't know the likes are displayed on the thread. 
It has been a wonderful 2 years. Stacking is really fun, and it is something you can't get from stocks or other paper investments.
It has been a wonderful 2 years. Stacking is really fun, and it is something you can't get from stocks or other paper investments.
Not related to this post..
Congratulation on 1000 likes...
My bad, I stopped watching after I worked out that CEC is just a bunch of fascists.
I don’t like fascists.
They steal property.
They have no understanding of economics.
Edit to add: I quickly scrolled through past bail-ins until I found the bit about negative rates. Jones provides no evidence to back his statement that we’ll go negative. He’s just making it up. And he expands on the myth by saying we’ll be getting negative savings rates. I don’t think anywhere in the world has negative savings rates. It’s a great story and it fires people up, but it’s not likely to happen.
Last edited:
Can we all band together on this one? Get our own protest movement going? The day that zero interest comes we all walk to the bank and withdraw every sent we have in our savings accounts?
I think the government and or the RBA needs a mechanism that slows the flow of new lending to housing and directs it to those looking to expand/start businesses. I could get a loan tomorrow for 2m in housing debt but trying to get 500k for a business loan and the banks want an arm and a leg. I get there are reasons for that but the last 20years of housing credit is obscene.
Why not close your savings account now and save with metals instead? You are already missing out by having excess cash in the bank. My bank balance is never above 1k (mainly because I'm a poor cunt but you get the principle).
Your dismissive labelling and preconceived beliefs aren't helping your argument. You're so quick to jump to conclusions without analysing information objectively, that I feel sorry for you.
You can't/won't answer the question I raised about "where do we go from here when we have a recession?". This is important because we have few options available and one of them is negative rates.
As I said before - look at the economic environment we're in - We do not have a healthy economy, markets are over-inflated and it would have to be the riskiest time to be investing into stocks/shares or property, which you've advocated for on the premise of "Not missing opportunities". All of this based upon your "evidence" that Philip Lowe and and other "Legally responsible" representatives say (or merely imply) that negative rates won't be coming to Australia...
You don't have any REAL evidence - you're speculating - AND openly imply that you intend to make investment decisions based on your speculation. Nice to see you know how to label yourself accurately.
MMM....SALTY!
madaw1
Well-Known Member
I've done it-no regret -1% in Bank-40%-n gold-the rest is history...
Thanks. I’m in desperate need of a compassionate other.
I’m not labelling the Citizens Party dismissively. I’m stating the truth about what they are. National-socialists. Run of the mill rednecks. Economic pygmies. Folk-economists. Market cavemen. Tin foilers. Mercantilists. Protectionists. A party intent upon using the power of the State to redistribute private property and interfere in the market in order to enhance their values at the expense of others.
There. I think I’ve covered all the labels and accusations I can throw at them.
I’ve answered that a number of times in this thread/other threads. We are in a recession, it’s just the mainstream indicators haven’t been triggered. See the discussion about Richard Koo in other threads. But I’ll answer it again nonetheless.
The next move will be a cut to 0.25%. Following that when the economy hasn’t shown any signs of improvement rather than go to 0% the RBA will introduce a program of QE whilst at the same time piling pressure on the government to enact fiscal policy changes. This will take the shape of either tax cuts, infrastructure spending programs, a round or 3 of “people’s QE” or a combination of 2 or even all 3 strategies. These policy changes have the potential to impact the share market, the real estate sector and those who choose to save or hoard cash. The implication of which is that we don’t need negative rates to see our purchasing power destroyed.
After that, runaway inflation - not hyper, just inflation beyond the control of what the RBA is able to prevent. They’ll then act late. Then Jesus will come back or something.
How do I know this? Is it because I’ve got a crystal ball. No. I know all of that (except the Jesus bit which is bullshit to begin with) because this is the plan that has already been spelled out by Lowe and other economic forecasters. Of which Allan Jones isn’t. He’s not even an economic forecaster’s arsehole.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. The opportunity cost could be too great to ignore. So for me it’s shares/RE/precious metals.
Speculating? Speculating is what Allan Jones and those who say we are headed for negative rates are doing. Their argument? Other countries have done it! That’s not evidence, it’s fallacious reasoning.
My reasoning is considered. It based upon the advice of those who are responsible for monetary policy decisions. I think I’ve only said that 456 times already. If Lowe intends to go beyond the effective lower bound he’ll flag it.
This is precisely what I think the most likely scenario and current plan is. That does not mean that it can't or won't change or there are no other options for policy makers to consider.
As you point out, it doesn't matter which way they go if our purchasing power (and currency) is destroyed then PMs is a good place to be.
"We are in a recession, it’s just the mainstream indicators haven’t been triggered." I partly agree with that. I hold the view we are unofficially in a recession, based on certain sectors within the economy and artificial growth spurts caused by monetary methadone. But this is all just the beginning of a much greater downturn in our economy, despite intervention from the RBA.
"The next move will be a cut to 0.25%. Following that when the economy hasn’t shown any signs of improvement rather than go to 0% the RBA will introduce a program of QE whilst at the same time piling pressure on the government to enact fiscal policy changes. This will take the shape of either tax cuts, infrastructure spending programs, a round or 3 of “people’s QE” or a combination of 2 or even all 3 strategies. These policy changes have the potential to impact the share market, the real estate sector and those who choose to save or hoard cash. The implication of which is that we don’t need negative rates to see our purchasing power destroyed."
I absolutely agree with that analysis. However, I don't for a second believe that we wont see negative rates. As you mentioned, the above programs and changes have implications. They are not an solution to systemic problems, merely a band-aid fix to buy more time/delay negative rates.
"Speculating is what Allan Jones and those who say we are headed for negative rates are doing. Their argument? Other countries have done it! That’s not evidence, it’s fallacious reasoning."
Their whole argument was not about other countries adopting NIRP. It was based around the current economic environment, interest rates currently being at 0.5%, the IMFs article analysing the ineffectiveness of negative rates without restrictions on cash, cash restriction laws being pushed through parliament and the ability of the government to change the regulations surrounding the bill once it's passed.
But for some reason you only want to focus on the ideals of particular individuals and dismiss everything else because they come from a source that you deem as "fascist" or "National-Socialist".
"My reasoning is considered. It based upon the advice of those who are responsible for monetary policy decisions. I think I’ve only said that 456 times already. If Lowe intends to go beyond the effective lower bound he’ll flag it."
Your reasoning is simple. You're 99% confident that we won't see negative rates until Philip Lowe says otherwise, or new "evidence" comes to light. But you don't need more evidence than what's already before you to effectively predict where we are headed.
I get your position and mindset. I also understand you've formed the views you do based on previous investing "mistakes" and have made adjustments to how you interpret and act upon certain information. Good! If it works for you, all the more power. But why call for evidence to the contrary and appear so close-minded towards Alternative views and information?
Doesn't the RBA considering the effectiveness of Negative rates underline the fact that the economic climate is one that requires the consideration of NIRP? Isn't the "Evidence" you provide that we won't see negative rates more Evidence that before we see negative rates, we will jump through Hoops A,B and C first? Rather than your claimed 99% certainty we won't adopt NIRP.
I'm not Banking on Negative rates - It makes little difference to my life moving forward. However, I do believe there is enough evidence to suggest that we will be seeing negative rates at some point in the near to distant future. I don't think we'll ever have any proof we'll see Negative rates until we're actually there, but we already have enough proof to suggest it's coming. Maybe not on our door step but it's about to take a left at Macca's down the road.
"The next move will be a cut to 0.25%. Following that when the economy hasn’t shown any signs of improvement rather than go to 0% the RBA will introduce a program of QE whilst at the same time piling pressure on the government to enact fiscal policy changes. This will take the shape of either tax cuts, infrastructure spending programs, a round or 3 of “people’s QE” or a combination of 2 or even all 3 strategies. These policy changes have the potential to impact the share market, the real estate sector and those who choose to save or hoard cash. The implication of which is that we don’t need negative rates to see our purchasing power destroyed."
I absolutely agree with that analysis. However, I don't for a second believe that we wont see negative rates. As you mentioned, the above programs and changes have implications. They are not an solution to systemic problems, merely a band-aid fix to buy more time/delay negative rates.
"Speculating is what Allan Jones and those who say we are headed for negative rates are doing. Their argument? Other countries have done it! That’s not evidence, it’s fallacious reasoning."
Their whole argument was not about other countries adopting NIRP. It was based around the current economic environment, interest rates currently being at 0.5%, the IMFs article analysing the ineffectiveness of negative rates without restrictions on cash, cash restriction laws being pushed through parliament and the ability of the government to change the regulations surrounding the bill once it's passed.
But for some reason you only want to focus on the ideals of particular individuals and dismiss everything else because they come from a source that you deem as "fascist" or "National-Socialist".
"My reasoning is considered. It based upon the advice of those who are responsible for monetary policy decisions. I think I’ve only said that 456 times already. If Lowe intends to go beyond the effective lower bound he’ll flag it."
Your reasoning is simple. You're 99% confident that we won't see negative rates until Philip Lowe says otherwise, or new "evidence" comes to light. But you don't need more evidence than what's already before you to effectively predict where we are headed.
I get your position and mindset. I also understand you've formed the views you do based on previous investing "mistakes" and have made adjustments to how you interpret and act upon certain information. Good! If it works for you, all the more power. But why call for evidence to the contrary and appear so close-minded towards Alternative views and information?
Doesn't the RBA considering the effectiveness of Negative rates underline the fact that the economic climate is one that requires the consideration of NIRP? Isn't the "Evidence" you provide that we won't see negative rates more Evidence that before we see negative rates, we will jump through Hoops A,B and C first? Rather than your claimed 99% certainty we won't adopt NIRP.
I'm not Banking on Negative rates - It makes little difference to my life moving forward. However, I do believe there is enough evidence to suggest that we will be seeing negative rates at some point in the near to distant future. I don't think we'll ever have any proof we'll see Negative rates until we're actually there, but we already have enough proof to suggest it's coming. Maybe not on our door step but it's about to take a left at Macca's down the road.
Last edited: