Carrington Clarke

So the language that Michelle Bullock used yesterday, when she was talking about how they are going to be guided by the data, I thought was interesting.

She said,

And you've referred to this, if you wait until you see it, it might be too late.

Now, that is interesting.

And so she's saying they got it wrong the other time around because they think they were too slow to act in hiking the first time around and then perhaps –

That was the lesson they'd had learnt last year, which is why we saw three rate cuts.

But actually, perhaps they did go too quickly on that particular occasion.

So now it's this question of when do you move?

Do you wait until inflation is down into the target range, which

according to the Reserve Bank forecast, is not until mid-2028.

It's a long time into the future, and obviously things can change, as we know, based on how much volatility there has been particularly over the last year.

Or do you think that they will act before that because they will be going based on what the trend shows them?

Even though we then subsequently saw inflation rearing its ugly head at the end of last year, you don't think the Reserve Bank's actions going with the three cuts made that situation worse?

Should they have done one or should they have waited longer?

What do you think?

They're doing the best thing they can.

And I mean, I think Michelle Bullock is doing a good job in these press conferences of trying to explain why it is that they're so hyper-focused on...

inflation and why they think it is the most damaging, one of the most damaging things that can happen to an economy and that it actually does hurt the most vulnerable more than anyone else.

And so that's why they're fixated, even though obviously people who have mortgages think, why are you imposing this pain on us right when we're already facing higher prices?

But they know how damaging this is historically.