cash rate unchanged!

Saw a caramel slice on sale for $4.50 at a coffee shop today, those suckers are getting smaller as well.

Good news? Don't know :)
 
Yes, all of you extravagant spenders, splurging on $1.50/ litre petrol, expensive vegetables and fruit. How many times do you need to be warned, stop spending!

yes - stop eating - stop going to work as that uses fuel either by public transport or private vehicle - stop paying your landlord rent, in fact don't get out of bed ... that'll keep inflation down. :rolleyes:
 
I saw a plain old Meat Pie yesterday for $4.75 for a plain old Mrs Mac's pie. I said to the girl serving WTF, she agreed and said that her bosses were rip off's and mentioned she didn't get a staff discount so she bought her lunches across the road.

She giggled when you guessed it I went across the road.
 
I saw a plain old Meat Pie yesterday for $4.75 for a plain old Mrs Mac's pie. I said to the girl serving WTF, she agreed and said that her bosses were rip off's and mentioned she didn't get a staff discount so she bought her lunches across the road.

She giggled when you guessed it I went across the road.
Starbucks is suffering in the US at the moment as it appears a $5 coffee is definitely a discretionary expense, so far we seem to be doing quite well, I read of the slow down in the papers but really can't verify it quite yet.

I practice Caramel slice arbitrage, they cost $4.25 for 4 in Woolies so I buy on the bid and eat on the offer at home.
 
Movie discounts this weekend

I thought it was interesting that Birch Carol and Coyle are advertising ALL their movies at $8 for ALL this weekend.
This is unusual.

Is it cos the movies are of a lower standard than usuaal. I don't know. Titles like IRONMAN, MADE OF HONOUR. Are they up to par ???

Maybe ppl are spending less on going to the flicks lately.

(I went to see Black Balloon the other nite and there were 6 ppl in the theatre including the 2 of us.)

Less discretionery spending?:eek:
 
Please explain ....

Gotta admit ..I'm a bit problematic with this inflation issue and the way we "deal" with it .... please consider ..

Petrol et al ( i.e. imported stuff that we need to live ) goes UP in price ...like ...we didn't cause it ...and we can't stop buying it ( because we need it to get to work etc ) ...

Then "veges, food etc" go UP in price ..and ... we didn't cause it ( drought etc ) ..but it's really hard to stop buying it ( because we need to eat etc).....

So because of the above, the Fed determines "inflation" is also UP ...so we put interest rates up ..and up ...and up.

What are we trying to do? ALL of the above do the SAME thing i.e. take money out of the consumer's pocket . They don't compensate each other . They in fact reinforce each other ....

When we increase IR's what happens? We penalise those who borrow money. Home owners? Families? Business people?

...and we reward those who do not borrow ....renters? cash rich?

I don't know about you ....but seems to me that's about the exact reverse of what we should be doing . We should be rewarding families who want to buy their own home . We should be rewarding business people who invest and employ people etc. ( No employers, no jobs...right?)

No wonder we ( normally) keep increasing interest rates until we have a recession ! We systematically well & truly kill the very people who drive both our society and our economy.

OK ....I'm a cynic .... shoot me down ....

LL
 
it appears a $5 coffee is definitely a discretionary expense

I'm traveling a bit a the moment, and found that coffee for 5 euros is common in Rome... That's currently about 8.30 AUD. I'm glad I don't drink coffee :)

Now we're in London, and a couple of days ago we 'splashed out' on KFC... a burger meal plus an extra burger... 18 AUD total.
 
Gotta admit ..I'm a bit problematic with this inflation issue and the way we "deal" with it .... please consider ..

Petrol et al ( i.e. imported stuff that we need to live ) goes UP in price ...like ...we didn't cause it ...and we can't stop buying it ( because we need it to get to work etc ) ...

Then "veges, food etc" go UP in price ..and ... we didn't cause it ( drought etc ) ..but it's really hard to stop buying it ( because we need to eat etc).....

So because of the above, the Fed determines "inflation" is also UP ...so we put interest rates up ..and up ...and up.

What are we trying to do? ALL of the above do the SAME thing i.e. take money out of the consumer's pocket . They don't compensate each other . They in fact reinforce each other ....

When we increase IR's what happens? We penalise those who borrow money. Home owners? Families? Business people?

...and we reward those who do not borrow ....renters? cash rich?

I don't know about you ....but seems to me that's about the exact reverse of what we should be doing . We should be rewarding families who want to buy their own home . We should be rewarding business people who invest and employ people etc. ( No employers, no jobs...right?)

No wonder we ( normally) keep increasing interest rates until we have a recession ! We systematically well & truly kill the very people who drive both our society and our economy.

OK ....I'm a cynic .... shoot me down ....

LL

I half agree with you. Its clear that the interest rate hikes have created inflationary expectations in relation to wages. Wages are going to shoot up as a result of interest rate hikes which will concern the Reserve Bank sufficient concern to further tighten the screws.

And today The Australian is acting all surprised that increasing interest rates can drive up inflation - the link is obvious to anyone with half a brain. If this is so shocking to the reporters for The Australian I am not inclined to think they have more than a quarter of a brain each (maybe they do a 4 way share?).

At least increases in inflation drive up the values of our properties :D (or at the very least reduce the debt component in real terms).
 
I'm traveling a bit a the moment, and found that coffee for 5 euros is common in Rome... That's currently about 8.30 AUD. I'm glad I don't drink coffee :)

Last time I was in Rome (2006) a typical espresso drank standing at the bar was €.60, or about A$1. The expense is in "renting" an expensive bit of real estate while you sit to drink your coffee.
 
Last time I was in Rome (2006) a typical espresso drank standing at the bar was €.60, or about A$1. The expense is in "renting" an expensive bit of real estate while you sit to drink your coffee.

London stock exchange listed coffee houses were performing quite poorly last year. There was an article in the Financial Times which attributed their poor results to escalating rents in high pedestrian traffic areas.

Apparently something like 60% of the cost of that $5 latte is going to rent.
 
I'm traveling a bit a the moment, and found that coffee for 5 euros is common in Rome... That's currently about 8.30 AUD. I'm glad I don't drink coffee :)

Now we're in London, and a couple of days ago we 'splashed out' on KFC... a burger meal plus an extra burger... 18 AUD total.

Imagine if you were here a year ago! 2.5AUD / 1 GBP rather than the current 2.07/1. That would have been $20+ KFC !!
 
Gotta admit ..I'm a bit problematic with this inflation issue and the way we "deal" with it .... please consider ..

Petrol et al ( i.e. imported stuff that we need to live ) goes UP in price ...like ...we didn't cause it ...and we can't stop buying it ( because we need it to get to work etc ) ...

Then "veges, food etc" go UP in price ..and ... we didn't cause it ( drought etc ) ..but it's really hard to stop buying it ( because we need to eat etc).....

So because of the above, the Fed determines "inflation" is also UP ...so we put interest rates up ..and up ...and up.

What are we trying to do? ALL of the above do the SAME thing i.e. take money out of the consumer's pocket . They don't compensate each other . They in fact reinforce each other ....

When we increase IR's what happens? We penalise those who borrow money. Home owners? Families? Business people?
Its not that the RBA intends to penalise those with debt, they are trying to deter those who are about to take out new debt. If people don't want to be penalised they should fix their rates. Those on variable are making a bet on the future.

The CPI story is only a small part of the RBA's decision process, in a tight labor market it becomes more important, because increasing petrol and food prices will eventually lead to higher wage claims and the beginning of an inflation spiral, which is bad for business and sustainable economic growth. The RBA prevents businesses increasing wages by reducing the income (through less demand for goods) and making the cost of investment and expansion higher. If they made it cheaper we'd all be getting 20% pay rises each year and the cost of bread would be doing the same thing.

Inflation due to rising energy costs, external to our economy and the feedback effect of interest rate rises in inflation are difficult to deal with, but I think Stevens made a good attempt of explaining this in this speech:

http://www.rba.gov.au/Speeches/2008/sp_gov_140308.html

This is the bit:

Suppose, though, that we did take out some of the ‘special factors’ that people nominate. Let’s, for the sake of argument, remove from the CPI rents and petrol, as well as the calculation of deposits and loan facilities. If we do that, the rate of inflation of the remaining items over the year to December 2007 is 2.1 per cent. No problem, right? Well, not exactly.

To assess the trend in inflation objectively, you cannot just take out items that rise in price, which is why we typically use underlying measures, which trim both extreme rises and falls. Suppose for the current purpose, then, that we also remove fresh fruit, as a very volatile item and one that happens to have held down the CPI over the past year, due to the unwinding of the great banana episode of 2005/06. Let’s also remove the effects of the child care rebate changes, treated as a price fall in the CPI, but which we know is a one-time effect and which reduced the CPI by 0.2 per cent.

If we do all that, we get a rate of inflation of 3.0 per cent over the year to December 2007. A little elementary figuring and a look at the quarterly profile, moreover, will tell you that, when this calculation is done for the year to March 2008, the answer is likely to be higher again. This is not all that far from what the statistical underlying measures, which dampen the effects of large rises and falls in a more systematic way, are telling us the trend inflation rate is now.
 
Its not that the RBA intends to penalise those with debt, they are trying to deter those who are about to take out new debt.

Sorry , but I have trouble with this. If it was true, then "they" could easily "hold" interest rates for existing loans and have "increased rates" for new loans. Now THAT would be truly deterring NEW debt...but they don't do that.

LL
 
... in a tight labor market it becomes more important, because increasing petrol and food prices will eventually lead to higher wage claims ....

Maybe ...but it seems that it hasn't yet .. see this link to The Age

http://business.theage.com.au/wage-rises-a-risk-rather-than-reality/20080508-2ccl.html

Now I could understand if the argument went " wages are up 20% vs inflation of 4%" ....so disposable income is UP so we're raising IRs ......now that would make sense. But to have IR rises becuase of the maybe threat of wage increases , seems to me to be well and truly putting the proverbial cart before the horse. Gees... this means they're taking the cash before it's been paid in wages !! Further, the many IR rises we've already had don't seem to have dented this inflation "thing" , which once again seems to me to show there's a "diconnect" somewhere. It just does not make logical sense.

LL
 
Back
Top