|
No, Alex, I won't bite from the view of a banker (long ex).
I will though comment on the current attitudes of both the banks and borrowers.
Looking in from the outside it appears to me that the banks have become far too lax in their quest for profit (and there's nothing wrong with profit as no business will survive without such) by allowing customers to borrow sums of money the repayment of which will absorb a significant percentage of the customer's income (private or business) whilst at the same time the customer having little equity in the purchase (whatever it might be). Perhaps there should be an equity requirement of ,say, 15% and a commitment of income no more than 25%.
Then there's credit cards. Oh dear!
From the customer's point of view surely it should be the equivalent. Don't over commit, take into account changes in interest rates - probable, possible or unlikely - allow for the cost of, say, owning a home (insurance, rates, utilities, maintenance) and servicing of all debts.
That's the micro level.
To answer the question of the macro level controls "I don't know". Simple.
The Reserve Bank, as already observed in this thread, is (theoretically) an independent body charged with the responsibility of economic control. As far as I am concerned that is the way it should be.
One of the problems with interest rate 'fiddling' is that it can, and does, affect the dabbling in currency by various traders (internal or external). This in turn affects our importers and exporters who, generally anyway, tend to use contracts based on U.S. of A. dollars. Either (but not both) could benefit or lose from that situation. Given the gold price variation over the last couple of years (+250 to +300% is it, Alex?) I'm quite happy that it is not used as a base.
I am not an economist. There are undoubtedly nuances of fiscal policy of which I am unaware. Given that the Reserve Bank is not accorded the power of a government what other choices does it have?
|