makes interest rates postcode and house price relevant

at the moment the RBA can’t put interest rates down because house prices in Sydney have risen

so… you make lending area dependent – if you are buying into Sydney then the interest rates on new loans have a tax levied on the loan or the interest rates have to have an extra percent levied on them for example

if you buy outside of cities your interest repayment is lower.

this cools the housing market whilst leaving the rest of the house market safe from harm

Well that was a let-down.

Well that was a let-down.

party_pants said:

Well that was a let-down.

party_pants said:

Well that was a let-down.

That’s both tyres gone.

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

Well that was a let-down.

party_pants said:

Well that was a let-down.

That’s both tyres gone.

It’s because I don;t have NBN and have to make do with stinky ADSL. On startup there’s always some rubbish my computer what’s to update, leaving main browser window slow and unresponsive.

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

Well that was a let-down.

party_pants said:

Well that was a let-down.

That’s both tyres gone.

It’s because I don;t have NBN and have to make do with stinky ADSL. On startup there’s always some rubbish my computer what’s to update, leaving main browser window slow and unresponsive.

Stop your computer doing that shit.
MSconfig

it makes complete sense

someone in a regional area pays a different rate on their loan, it discourages the housing market from over heating in Sydney, it encourages investment into regional areas

the other way of solving the problem would be dropping the present interest rates to say…. 3 percent, it encourages people to take a loan they can’t afford

you then jack the rates up and then collapse the system a little, regional areas might cope more than the city

wookiemeister said:

it makes complete sense

It makes no sense, because the government doesn’t set retail interest rates. It was deregulated ages ago and everyone thought it was a good idea. For someone who is is normally against government it seems a strange idea.

if this is a brilliant idea – I won’t be clicking on any links proclaiming a Wookie stupid idea.

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

Well that was a let-down.

party_pants said:

Well that was a let-down.

That’s both tyres gone.

It’s because I don;t have NBN and have to make do with stinky ADSL. On startup there’s always some rubbish my computer what’s to update, leaving main browser window slow and unresponsive.

My heart bleeds for you. I have NBN but your connection is vastly faster than mine and I suspect significantly faster than that of most other people on the forum. Except OCDC perhaps.

Cheaper loans for rural properties.
Sounds good to me.

morrie said:

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

That’s both tyres gone.

It’s because I don;t have NBN and have to make do with stinky ADSL. On startup there’s always some rubbish my computer what’s to update, leaving main browser window slow and unresponsive.

My heart bleeds for you. I have NBN but your connection is vastly faster than mine and I suspect significantly faster than that of most other people on the forum. Except OCDC perhaps.

So I got defensive with Bubblecar pulling the piss out of my double-posting. I’ve calmed down now.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

it makes complete sense

It makes no sense, because the government doesn’t set retail interest rates. It was deregulated ages ago and everyone thought it was a good idea. For someone who is is normally against government it seems a strange idea.

if this is a brilliant idea – I won’t be clicking on any links proclaiming a Wookie stupid idea.

angry pants

end of transmission

morrie said:

Cheaper loans for rural properties.
Sounds good to me.

see

it makes sense

wookiemeister said:

morrie said:

Cheaper loans for rural properties.
Sounds good to me.

see

it makes sense

It makes sense to me because I would benefit from it right now. I don’t really have a handle on the broader perspective.

why should the price of real estate in one city decide the fate of the whole economy? its ridiculous

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

it makes complete sense

It makes no sense, because the government doesn’t set retail interest rates. It was deregulated ages ago and everyone thought it was a good idea. For someone who is is normally against government it seems a strange idea.

if this is a brilliant idea – I won’t be clicking on any links proclaiming a Wookie stupid idea.

angry pants

end of transmission

I thought you were against government waste and incompetence? What you’re proposing is very complex in terms of administration, they’ll stuff it up without a shadow of a doubt.

morrie said:

wookiemeister said:

morrie said:

Cheaper loans for rural properties.
Sounds good to me.

see

it makes sense

It makes sense to me because I would benefit from it right now. I don’t really have a handle on the broader perspective.

its spreading investment more evenly. over heated real estate in one city shouldn’t dictate a whole economy.

the other option is for the RBA to ignore Sydney, let interest rates fall and then when they rise just allow that section of the market to make a loss

morrie said:

wookiemeister said:

morrie said:

Cheaper loans for rural properties.
Sounds good to me.

see

it makes sense

It makes sense to me because I would benefit from it right now. I don’t really have a handle on the broader perspective.

What would be satisfying is if the more money a person made the further they would be forced to locate themselves away from humanity. Clive Palmer and Jabba-jowels whats’er’twat would now be somewhere in the Kimberleys being forced to obtain very high priced service from those interested enough to follow their money around.

wookiemeister said:

why should the price of real estate in one city decide the fate of the whole economy? its ridiculous

Why would those with the money loan it out at a lower interest rate?

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

It makes no sense, because the government doesn’t set retail interest rates. It was deregulated ages ago and everyone thought it was a good idea. For someone who is is normally against government it seems a strange idea.

if this is a brilliant idea – I won’t be clicking on any links proclaiming a Wookie stupid idea.

angry pants

end of transmission

I thought you were against government waste and incompetence? What you’re proposing is very complex in terms of administration, they’ll stuff it up without a shadow of a doubt.

not much government waste there, you simply tell the banks to make sure the interest rates in Sydney are 1 percent more than elsewhere

it wouldn’t require anyone to monitor it, if a bank is found to have breached the agreement its a 100 million fine no exceptions – first you’d freeze the banks assets, take the money then hand the bank back to them

wookiemeister said:

morrie said:

wookiemeister said:

see

it makes sense

It makes sense to me because I would benefit from it right now. I don’t really have a handle on the broader perspective.

its spreading investment more evenly. over heated real estate in one city shouldn’t dictate a whole economy.

the other option is for the RBA to ignore Sydney, let interest rates fall and then when they rise just allow that section of the market to make a loss

I can tell you from years of doing briefs there is always the first option, do nothing.

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

why should the price of real estate in one city decide the fate of the whole economy? its ridiculous

Why would those with the money loan it out at a lower interest rate?

its a balance between offering a loan low enough to compete with other lenders and high enough to make profit

as i said the other option is that you allow the savage booms and busts to occur – which is probably easier

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

morrie said:

It makes sense to me because I would benefit from it right now. I don’t really have a handle on the broader perspective.

its spreading investment more evenly. over heated real estate in one city shouldn’t dictate a whole economy.

the other option is for the RBA to ignore Sydney, let interest rates fall and then when they rise just allow that section of the market to make a loss

I can tell you from years of doing briefs there is always the first option, do nothing.

Good God man you have to do something, or at least be seen to do something.
Where would Australia be today without the mining tax?

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

morrie said:

It makes sense to me because I would benefit from it right now. I don’t really have a handle on the broader perspective.

its spreading investment more evenly. over heated real estate in one city shouldn’t dictate a whole economy.

the other option is for the RBA to ignore Sydney, let interest rates fall and then when they rise just allow that section of the market to make a loss

I can tell you from years of doing briefs there is always the first option, do nothing.

banks will normally give approvals for the loan – they do their own assessment on the property’s worth

the RBA should just let Sydney do its own thing

if house prices rise in Sydney – so what, when the crunch comes then you just let the banks fall – simple

Peak Warming Man said:

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

its spreading investment more evenly. over heated real estate in one city shouldn’t dictate a whole economy.

the other option is for the RBA to ignore Sydney, let interest rates fall and then when they rise just allow that section of the market to make a loss

I can tell you from years of doing briefs there is always the first option, do nothing.

Good God man you have to do something, or at least be seen to do something.
Where would Australia be today without the mining tax?

Maybe we should consider a Mae Ning tax. Anyone named Mae Ning is responsible for all public costs…….

wookiemeister said:

if house prices rise in Sydney – so what, when the crunch comes then you just let the banks fall – simple

See there’s your problem.

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

why should the price of real estate in one city decide the fate of the whole economy? its ridiculous

Why would those with the money loan it out at a lower interest rate?

its a balance between offering a loan low enough to compete with other lenders and high enough to make profit

as i said the other option is that you allow the savage booms and busts to occur – which is probably easier

But if they loaned it for city development, they would make more money. Why would they invest their money in country or outer city areas?

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

angry pants

end of transmission

I thought you were against government waste and incompetence? What you’re proposing is very complex in terms of administration, they’ll stuff it up without a shadow of a doubt.

not much government waste there, you simply tell the banks to make sure the interest rates in Sydney are 1 percent more than elsewhere

it wouldn’t require anyone to monitor it, if a bank is found to have breached the agreement its a 100 million fine no exceptions – first you’d freeze the banks assets, take the money then hand the bank back to them

You would need a veritable horde of public servants to assess and make recomendations. Why 1% higher and 0.8% or 1.2%. What will be the evidence upon which the decision is made?

another way to rein in banking’s thirst for over lending is to create a public register that shows the percentage of loans to savings of a bank

when savers see the bank is over lending they quickly take their savings out

when the interest rates rise again and many people default the bank simply collapses and everyone starts again

as the lending : savings ratio starts tipping the bank would be faced with the option of slowing loans or face the herd’s stampede from their banks accounts

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

Why would those with the money loan it out at a lower interest rate?

its a balance between offering a loan low enough to compete with other lenders and high enough to make profit

as i said the other option is that you allow the savage booms and busts to occur – which is probably easier

But if they loaned it for city development, they would make more money. Why would they invest their money in country or outer city areas?

What sort of return do people get from city investment? Not including capital gain.

I have 8.7 percent return, before costs on a rural investment, but zero capital gain.

wookiemeister said:

another way to rein in banking’s thirst for over lending is to create a public register that shows the percentage of loans to savings of a bank

when savers see the bank is over lending they quickly take their savings out

when the interest rates rise again and many people default the bank simply collapses and everyone starts again

as the lending : savings ratio starts tipping the bank would be faced with the option of slowing loans or face the herd’s stampede from their banks accounts

That’s a lot of woo wookie.

Peak Warming Man said:

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

its spreading investment more evenly. over heated real estate in one city shouldn’t dictate a whole economy.

the other option is for the RBA to ignore Sydney, let interest rates fall and then when they rise just allow that section of the market to make a loss

I can tell you from years of doing briefs there is always the first option, do nothing.

Good God man you have to do something, or at least be seen to do something.
Where would Australia be today without the mining tax?

—

Norway…

The country maintains a combination of market economy and a Nordic welfare model with universal health care and a comprehensive social security system. Norway has extensive reserves of petroleum, natural gas, minerals, lumber, seafood, fresh water, and hydropower. The petroleum industry accounts for around a quarter of the country’s gross domestic product. The country has the fourth-highest per capita income in the world on the World Bank and IMF lists, as well as ninth-highest on a more comprehensive CIA list. On a per-capita basis, it is the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas outside the Middle East, From 2001 to 2006, and then again from 2009 to 2014, Norway had the highest Human Development Index ranking in the world. Norway has also topped the Legatum Prosperity Index for the last five years. The OECD ranks Norway fourth in the 2013 equalised Better Life Index and third in intergenerational earnings elasticity. From 2010 to 2012, Norway was classified as the most democratic country by the Democracy Index.

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

another way to rein in banking’s thirst for over lending is to create a public register that shows the percentage of loans to savings of a bank

when savers see the bank is over lending they quickly take their savings out

when the interest rates rise again and many people default the bank simply collapses and everyone starts again

as the lending : savings ratio starts tipping the bank would be faced with the option of slowing loans or face the herd’s stampede from their banks accounts

That’s a lot of woo wookie.

I’m listening…

maybe when banks collapse we don’t rescue them?

if you make the public register of banks finances simplified it would protect the saving public, as they saw too much money being lent out against a government/ RBA recommendation, they would simply shift that money to another perhaps more prudent bank , in the wink of an eye.

thus the public register is like a sword of Damocles hanging above the bank’s head

maybe people would need more than one bank account in this system?

as the alarm bells started ringing money would be transferred out to another bank

those banks unwilling to act sensibly become unstable

I think you need to go away and learn how the banking system in Australia actually works, so you can real-world goats trampling upon nuns in black habit on the barren purple rocks of Westerbury.

I think an owl is trapped in the forum.

wookiemeister said:

maybe people would need more than one bank account in this system?

as the alarm bells started ringing money would be transferred out to another bank

those banks unwilling to act sensibly become unstable

——

According to the economics I studied four players in a market should lead to competition.

Unfortunately in Australia it has led to an oligopaly, this means all players do not compete on price but agree to keep their prices high and compete on colour.

That’s our Wookie!