Skip to main content

Interest-rates and those hip-pocket nerves

Now that the Reserve Bank has this morning lifted the interest rate by .25 points, this item in Crikey's newsletter yesterday [by subscription and not on line] make for interesting reading:

"Let's have a little look at the interest rate issue. During the 2004 election campaign, Mr Howard said: “I will guarantee that interest rates will always be lower under a Coalition Government. Who do you trust to keep interest rates low?”

If interest rates rise tomorrow morning and the banks pass on the increase to mortgage holders, it will be seven straight interest rate rises since May 2002 and three rises since the October 2004 election.

For someone taking out an average mortgage, these interest increases mean an extra $650 per month or $7,825 per year on interest payments alone. Have a look at this table. It shows how mortgage rates have moved since April 2002 and the monthly “interest only” payments on that loan.

Interest payments on average mortgage*

April 2002 (Rates on hold) $794.88
8 May 2002 Up ¼ per cent $827.38
5 June 2002 Up ¼ per cent $863.93
5 November 2003 Up ¼ per cent $1,076.94
3 December 2003 Up ¼ per cent $1,100.07
2 March 2005 Up ¼ per cent $1,296.49
3 May 2006 Up ¼ per cent $1,400.64
2 August 2006 Up ¼ per cent $1,447.02

*Interest only. Source: Reserve Bank of Australia, Australian Bureau of Statistics

What's more, Australian interest rates are now higher than in:
The United States
Europe
Britain
Canada
Sweden
Switzerland
Japan
China
Malaysia
Singapore
South Korea
Taiwan
Thailand
Chile
Peru
Israel
Saudi Arabia
The Czech Republic
Poland

To name a few."

OUCH!!!!! How does it translate into votes for or against the political parties is a story with some time to run.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more