The demand that the treasurer intervene to cut rates unless governor Michele Bullock does so herself effectively sinks Jim Chalmers's chances of passing his reforms.

This seems pretty wtf.

What sort of precedent do they want to set? Whether or not you embrace neoliberal ideology political interference with monetary policy has not typically gone well, no matter what or whom you want to blame for that.

Am I missing something, or are they just going off the rails here?

  • NaevaTheRat [she/her]@vegantheoryclub.orgOPEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

    Yeah samesies. I’ll listen to criticism of neoliberal economic doctrine and monetary policy all day because well gestures at everything but it’s a mistake to take potshots at a system without replacing it with something.

    I’m on board for bold experimentation, the current system is not working and causes horrific suffering, but I want to have the experiment laid out.

    So you attack the rba and… then what? Nothing systemic changes and now a precedent of fiddling with currency for short term political reasons is established. I see that working out really well.