New RBA Governor announced - Michele Bullock

Remove this Banner Ad

So are you now suggesting the 2IC is now responsible for the decision of a company?

If so, why have a Governor?
Yes, as a member of the current Board of course I'm suggesting they are at least partly responsible for the decisions the Board has taken.

Are you honestly suggesting that replacing the Governor with their deputy would do anything to change the direction of the Board?

As I said earlier, the government has effectively said today that they are happy with how the Board is operating.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Yes, as a member of the current Board of course I'm suggesting they are at least partly responsible for the decisions the Board has taken.

Are you honestly suggesting that replacing the Governor with their deputy would do anything to change the direction of the Board?

As I said earlier, the government has effectively said today that they are happy with how the Board is operating.
So your end position here is Lowe should have no accountability if the person replacing him is a deputy.

If they had been external, you'd be fine.
 
So your end position here is Lowe should have no accountability if the person replacing him is a deputy.

If they had been external, you'd be fine.
I've never said he should have no accountability, of course he should. But the rest of the Board needs to have accountability too, and appointing his deputy is effectively vindicating the decisions that the Board have been taking and making it seem like the government had an issue with Lowe personally, not the way the Board was operating.
 
I've never said he should have no accountability, of course he should. But the rest of the Board needs to have accountability too, and appointing his deputy is effectively vindicating the decisions that the Board have been taking and making it seem like the government had an issue with Lowe personally, not the way the Board was operating.
His public performances have been poor. So yes it would have been personal.

Edit - a portion of his role is public facing, been bad at that counts.

At the end of the day, the buck stops with him.
 
His public performances have been poor. So yes it would have been personal.

Edit - a portion of his role is public facing, been bad at that counts.

At the end of the day, the buck stops with him.

I would say a large part of his job, perhaps 90%, is communication be that internal or external

He didn’t come across well


In terms of performance, of the RBA as a whole has been poor in the last 12 months

the interest rate rises in my opinion were not necessary as the inflation related to short term supply chain issues and war. Not an over stimulated economy
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I would say a large part of his job, perhaps 90%, is communication be that internal or external

He didn’t come across well


In terms of performance, of the RBA as a whole has been poor in the last 12 months

the interest rate rises in my opinion were not necessary as the inflation related to short term supply chain issues and war. Not an over stimulated economy
I do wonder if some earlier intervention might have helped.
 
Wouldn't it be better for a clean fresh start instead of going with the deputy governor who will probably deliver more of the same ?
Let's be honest - the Reserve Bank governor is the best asset the government can have. They deliver all the really bad news which the government distances themselves from.

If the government were serious about doing their bit on inflation they'd kill the stage 3 tax cuts. This move would be the single most effective move available to curb inflation. But it is much easier to just blame a bit of pain for the working class on the reserve bank governor than it is to risk a bit of political skin.
 
As someone who's not fully around how the rates work or worries to much about what i cannot control, will sacking him mean the rates will drop, or is it all about optics.

Most people would only want to see the rates drop, and more than likely don't give a rats who's making the announcement.
 
Timing is interesting. Most agree we’re at the top of cycle of rises. Lowe delivers the bad news and takes the fall for it. If Bullock keeps rates steady and reduces them next year then it makes Albo look like he made a good decision, and reduced rates are his doing.
 
So what? Does any perceived lack of ability to communicate impact on his capacity to do his job?
If he can't properly explain to people the reasons why his organisation is putting them into greater mortgage stress, what does that do for public trust in said organisation?
 
As someone who's not fully around how the rates work or worries to much about what i cannot control, will sacking him mean the rates will drop, or is it all about optics.

Most people would only want to see the rates drop, and more than likely don't give a rats who's making the announcement.
Optics. You'd need a complete outsider with a different view of economics for real change. That kind of person might view the current period of inflation as being fuelled by corporate profiteering rather than out of control levels of household spending, which is supported by the evidence. And as a result, they might conclude that lowering interest rates is the way to go.

But while that will reduce the cost of mortgage payments, it won't do anything to make the price of goods and services lower. For that, the government needs to start putting higher taxes on corporate fat cats. But instead, both Labor and the LNP want to hand out huge tax cuts to people on high incomes. So expect more interest rate rises in the years to come.
 
I dare say the last part is the problem some people don't want to say out loud

I don't see it as a problem, even if she was "groomed" or "fast tracked". At the end of the day, she isn't there to "do the work", rather she is there to be the spokesperson, appoint the chief executive and manage the board. The job requires skill but it isn't as if the function of the RBA could be compromised.
 
I do wonder if some earlier intervention might have helped.

My belief is the RBA policy has been linked to the ukraine war and the increased interest rates have been designed to lower russia's FX in relative terms. Thus I believe it was design rather than poor performance.

Then again, whether it was design or poor performance it is not appropriate to "intervene" as this is what maintains the all important RBA's independence from government.
 
As long as she's well groomed.

do you not believe "grooming" a key person for a future role is important?

do you think it is a better idea to not identify a future leader or deny people learning and training and then just chuck anyone in

I'd love to here more about your position or are you just having a whinge?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top