But do you agree with homer, that Weekend Bernie was the best RBA boss we ever, ever had… bar none?

Firstly, doofus, you can’t “plagiarise” a word. I know you have all the literary sophistication of your more retarded garden snail, but take it from me that you don’t have any form of copyright over words you happen to like, doofus.

Second, I noted you used my link not because I thought you were “plagiarising” me, doofus, but because you were attempting another cack-handed “gotcha” moment while in reality inserting your foot in your capacious mouth. I’ll put it more simply for your feeble brain: I don’t need you to show me data that I’ve already shown you. I can use crayons and stick figure cartoons to explain this further if it’ll get the point through your dense skull.

Third, whether you think Bernie Fraser is the best or worst RBA boss ever blah di fecking blah is NOT the relevant point of this thread. The fact that you inserted the inane topic into the thread does not make it relevant; it just makes it of interest to one deluded crank. I haven’t commented on this bizarre little distraction of yours because I honestly don’t give a rats’ arse about the topic. Needless to say, your opinion on the subject is, like all of your rantings, profoundly pointless and irrelevant.

Do you agree with Homer, that Weekend Bernie was the best RBA head we ever had? Do you? :-)

JC, it is all there in black and white to your state of ignorance of why the RBA acted as it did.

For someone who believes that man and dinosaurs walked around in Africa or wherever at the same time, homes, you should be the last person giving advice on what/who you consider to be ignorant. No offense meant, but you are getting a little ahead of yourself here, Archimedes.

He was far away the best governmor we have ever had</blockquote

>
Homer would you accept, Fyodor’s “unbiasd” opinion? No, not about the dinosaurs, but about Weekend at Bernies. Lol

—————————

Busty Joe, youve demonstrated yet again your inability to follow an argument, and your juvenile OT cut & paste rambling is the proof of it.

Panties Ras, youre the master of cut and paste. You ought to talk, MR. One liner.

Go back to the start and pay attention this time. Try to keep up with the rest of the group – youre slowing down the group with your inane drivel.

Oh please. Stop it with the irrelevant comments. Look in the mirror.

For a doofus as linguistically incompetent as your deluded self youre rather possessive about words, arentcha?

“Doofus”, now “possessive”. For someone critical of others you sure copy a lot Panties Ras.

Moreover if you’re going to plagiarize my terms etc., you shouldn’t have a problem with people using your links against you :-)

Now lets get back on track and return to stoushing on relevant points to the thread.

Do you think Weekend at Bernies was the greatest RBA boss ever, Ras?

Go back to the start and pay attention this time. Try to keep up with the rest of the group – you’re slowing down the group with your inane drivel.

Stop stealing my insults. Get your own.

For a doofus as linguistically incompetent as your deluded self you’re rather possessive about words, aren’tcha?

It must be said Bernie was a lot more prescient about the near future than either the market was or most economists.

he was far away the best governmor we have ever had

if you read the RBA bulletins………..

And that would help because……?

if you read the RBA bulletins you would ask so many daft questions

Look up partisan in a dictionary, Busty Joe, and tell me where it says you have to be a liberal voter to be partisan

You’re not serious are you, ras. Is this really the best you can come up with?

I do find it curious, however, that you were linking to said bulletin data tables at #20. Probably because you were copying my earlier link at #9.

Good point, I should have simply used yours instead of Googling RBA inflation stats seeing your links normally support the other person argument :-). You’re right; it would have saved me time.

It was my link, Busty Joe.

You’re very possessive with your “links” aren’t you?

And its clear to everyone but you that were talking about post-1992, as quoted by Alex at #8

.

Yes. It was Alex’s failing not to bring up “weekend at Bernie’s” economic corpse of the 80s. He should have, as it would have shown what Weekend Bernie had been really up to.

The only person who keeps referring to the 1980s is you, probably because you havent left it yet.

That’s funny. I mean that. But I can’t take that honor as Homer’s around and he would get that award in a heart beat.

Learn to read, doofus.

Stop stealing my insults. Get your own.

For the life of me, I really dont get what it is your trying to convey. RBA bulletins are best thrown in the waste paper basket. I always did.

No surprise there – you’re known for your aversion to facts; your arguments hold up much better if you rely on stuff you make up. I do find it curious, however, that you were linking to said bulletin data tables at #20. Probably because you were copying my earlier link at #9.

Not in the 80s it didnt. Check out the link. CPI averaged aprox 7.7% from 1985 to 1994.

It was my link, Busty Joe. And it’s clear to everyone but you that we’re talking about post-1992, as quoted by Alex at #8. The only person who keeps referring to the 1980s is you, probably because you haven’t left it yet.

Learn to read, doofus.

IN THE MAIN, the RBA has kept CPI growth at or about 2.5%.

Not in the 80′s it didn’t. Check out the link. CPI averaged aprox 7.7% from 1985 to 1994.

I dont vote Liberal – never have, never will.

Rasputin says:

You dont have to vote Liberal to be partisan, Alex,

LOL

You neglected to mention that CPU growth has also exceeded 2.5% in a number of periods since, most notably around the introduction of the GST, but on each occasion the growth has proved to be a transitory surge. IN THE MAIN, the RBA has kept CPI growth at or about 2.5%.

So we’re talking about different periods now. LOL

You were nit-picking with the aim of scoring cheap points. Theres plenty in Nicholas economics to dispute – I suggest you choose something substantive next time.

Thanks for agreeing with my point :-)

Homer:
For the life of me, I really don’t get what it is your trying to convey. RBA bulletins are best thrown in the waste paper basket. I always did.

There is a thing called RBA bulletins that outlines the decisions they made.
It is also clear to those people who were around at the time.

It is hard for those like yourself who clearly have litte understnding of economics.

alex is dong a JC. Fyodor nailed him and quite clearly.

After his and sinkers disasterous election campaign I doubt whethet he or sinkers have much creddibilty left!

You neglected to mention that CPU growth has also exceeded 2.5% in a number of periods since, most notably around the introduction of the GST, but on each occasion the growth has proved to be a transitory surge. IN THE MAIN, the RBA has kept CPI growth “at or about 2.5%”.

You were nit-picking with the aim of scoring cheap points. There’s plenty in Nicholas’ economics to dispute – I suggest you choose something substantive next time.

Ad hominum attacks from Parish and others don’t change the simple facts: inflation rose above 2.5% in the period that I specified. It wasn’t “kept” at 2.5% as Nick claimed.

I never said that inflation didn’t fall during the Keating administration. It is clear that it did, and I give Keating full credit, as well as full blame for the recession that he deliberatly engineered.

I am simply making a very narrow point: inflation fell and then rose again, and averaged 4 per cent over quite a long period of time. 4 per cent is still quite low, but it is not 2.5%. When something is running at 4%, I don’t think it is right that we say that it was “kept” at 2.5%.

I fail to see how there is anything partisan about any of these points. I am just reporting what the data says.

Are you broke? You keep buying these bridges that you must have run outta cash by now. And stop it with the reading assigments. You’re a fine one to be teaching history let alone economic history.

the RBA was concerned that the principal actors in wage negotiations under the new deregulated labour market

This is not you saying this, right? Some one must be ghosting you, Homerpath. I’d complain if I were you. :-)

if you did any research at all you would have found out the RBA was concerned that the principal actors in wage negotiations under the new deregulated labour market did not believe the RBA would put rates up and so they could either go for specious wage claims or merely pass on cost rises.

Bernie gave the RBA street cred. Something it had never had and as the present time it has never lost.

It takes pain to keep inflation down at first

Central Banks raise or cut interest rates according to future levels of inflation.

Well not exactly Homerpath. They put up rates to amend previous policy crew-ups.

The reason Bernie put rates up from August to December 1994 was because the RBA was expecting inflation to rise they wanted to put a stop to it once and for all.

What you really mean is Bernie panicked during the recession “we had to have”, lowered rates like crazy, missed the stop sign and then went barreling into inflation again. He thought he was driving an automatic instead of a stick shift.

Keating might well have hoped Bernie would have cut rates in late 195 or early 1996 but he let the Liberals gain the glory for that

What with 3 straight quarters of negative CPI (see above)? That sure looks good on the old resume. I’m sure the Libs would have had a ball during that first term if the CPI was any indication of the times. I wasn’t here to judge. Did you feel the love, Homes? Was it a boom time?

Central Banks raise or cut interest rates according to future levels of inflation.

The reason Bernie put rates up from August to December 1994 was because the RBA was expecting inflation to rise they wanted to put a stop to it once and for all.

They did.

Keating might well have hoped Bernie would have cut rates in late 195 or early 1996 but he let the Liberals gain the glory for that.

Low but non-zero inflation gives the central bank greater purchase on interest rates allowing negative real rates in economic downturns – or at least keeping the possibility of such rates in reserve.

Also little money illusion ticking away is handy to let the economy adjust. If you’ve got inflation at 2.5% you can get a real 10% wage reduction in an industry in a four year nominal wage freeze. With zero or negative inflation there are strong psychological barriers to cutting real wages and therefore to changes in relative wages between different sectors of the economy. Akerlof developed these arguments a few years ago.

Well if he raised rates in 1994, he certainly wasn’t raising because the CPI was over the target level in that year as CPI was as follaws
1994 %
March q 1.4
June q 1.7
Sept q 1.5
Dec q 2.5

Inflation really began to kick arse in 1995
1995
March 3.9
June 4.5
Sep 5.1
Dec 5.1

Shit a brick , we then had deflation in three quarters of 1996/997 with CPI regestering negative so it looks like the RBA hit the brakes hard. It also looks like Howard’s first term was marked with very strong disinflationary pull judging from these figs and the central bank must have been lowering rates like crazy. You could look and confirm this , homer so let us know what cash rates did during this time.

Wow! the RBA from mrch 1983 to dec 1990 ran an inflation rate of 7.7%. That’s huge.

http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/Bulletin/G01hist.xls

you two last sentences make no sense though the one you quote from me does

I don’t see anything good coming out of monetary disequilibria, which is not necessarily highlighted in the CPI.

The negative aftershocks to potential GDP growth rates have lasting effects when it is molested by policy tightening to curb previous monetary disequilibria brought on by policy mistakes.

We look at the CPI think it well behaved but that isn’t necessarily indicating the monetary mess behind the scene. I don’t understand for the life of me how anyone can argue/behave as though money is a neutral concept and have central banks that give almost no consideration to monetary aggregates these days.

Let me ask you this though. Why is a little bit of inflation a good thing, while a little bit of deflation is a bad thing? Honest question here and I’m not trying to play gotcha.

If one of the objectives is to try and help the not so will off then the answer is neither of these. Especially not a little bit of inflation, as they don’t have the resources to buy protective hedges.

You keep the fact that you are a generally sensible and nice fellow so well hidden on the blogosphere! But your secret is safe with me.

It’s an easy decision to keep inflation low once you’ve got it there. Both McFarlane and Fraser made that decision.

It’s not at all clear that you should cruel the economy to get it down from 7% to 2% – like Paul Volker did. It might be worth it, and with your grasp of the evidence (all those econometric cross country studies and meta-analyses you do to give you the edge when trading) I would defer to your knowledge I guess. But some of us are not so sure. We know of countries that have done OK with inflation at moderate levels for quite long periods of time.

Bernie and the world’s greatest treasurer by 1994 had a decade to stamp out inflation. The fact they were up to their eyeballs in that swamp in 1994 reminds me of Abbott and Costello’s (no not them) who’s on first comedy routine. Hilarious, but by that time painful.

Rate raises to stamp out inflationary impulses is not a sign of strength or policy foresight. Its a clear sign of past policy screw-ups which in this case means responsibility rests primarily with Keating for not firing Bernie as the RBA was not independent at the time. In short, Bernie should have been fired ages ago and Keating ought to take the rap.

The RBA has a better record on inflation than the Fed since 1993 when they adopted an inflation target

check the figs, Homer. Bernie left in 96 we’re in 07 now in case you didn’t realize.

I think think Fyodor’s and Ken’s charge of cherry picking has some merit? What do you reckon?

My own response is that for all its faults (I’m not a fan of Keating), the Keating Government took the fortuitous opportunity of the recession’s hammering of inflation to make the change to a low inflation environment. They did that despite John Howard’s very successful line about ‘five minutes of economic sunshine’ (not that I’m blaming him for using that line – any politician would have done so). It was precisely the high rates during the period you mention that cemented our inflation into our economy and helped see the end of the Keating Government.

While we’ve got you could I invite you to further clarify the article that we all found hard to follow and discussed here.