Interest rates - why is going up a bad thing?

The newspaper headlines are running with the possibility of an interest rate rise in Australia. The tone of the articles is that an interest rate rise is "bad news".

For whom is it bad news? Well, it's bad news if you are borrowing money.
But equally it's good news if you have savings as you earn more interest.

In particular, it is good news for many older people who are getting more income from their retirement savings.

So while the newly mortgaged Gen-Whatevers may have to cut back on their purchases of plasma TVs, iPods and personal videoplayers in the back seats of their cars, their grandparents may get to eat steak instead of sausages, or maybe even sausages instead of dog food. Maybe they might be able to afford a mobile phone to call the doctor or the ambulance. Is that such a bad thing?

I look forward to the headline "Interest rates rise!" accompanied by the photo of Darby & Joan clinking their tea cups with the caption: "Darby: this is great news! We'll be be able to run our heater this winter & Joan is looking forward to those new dentures!"

In loving memory of Zambezi (Zammi)

In loving memory of Zambezi (aka Zammi)
1-1-1991 - 20-10-2007 aged 16 years

Our beloved cat Zammi died peacefully and painlessly today (Saturday) on our back verandah, assisted by our vet. His cancer had progressed to a point where euthanasia was the only option.

We would like to thank everyone for your kind words, patience and support over the past several weeks, as we nursed him through this final illness. It has been an emotionally wretched time for us, and your support has been truly appreciated.

He will be cremated and we will scatter his ashes around the bottlebrush tree in our front garden, which he loved to climb and get up onto the roof.

Zammi had so much personality and was such an integral part of our lives that we will miss him terribly.

Libertarianism - try reading Heinlein

Following from Jim's post and Ricky's post and various comments to their posts ...

I would comment that it is precisely the "nannying state" that Ricky objects to that has produced such fine upstanding citizens as Jim and Ricky themselves. I am sure Ricky will not drive at ridiculous speeds with his baby in the back seat. Yes, the nannying state seeks to protect, but ask a child if they need protection, and they often say no, yet as adults (the nannies) we know children do.

Would a libertarians state have anti-discrimination laws? Or would we all be free to discriminate against women, coloured folk, Muslims, gays etc as employers, landlords, etc? If so, where would that leave most of us in this conversation? My guess is that most of us wouldn't have got more than a minimal education so we could wash dishes and even if we did, would we have jobs? I am old enough to remember when job adverts were listed separately under "Men & Boys" and "Women & Girls" and when it was OK to write "Women need not apply" and "No blacks". Sorry, but the nanny state gave me rights, and I am not turning back that clock.

Obviously when we legislate to protect, we have to draw some lines in the sand as to where that boundary should be. Is 60 kph a reasonable speed limit for a major road, or should it be 55 kph or 70 kph? Should the permitted blood alcohol be 0.05 or higher or lower? Obviously there are individual circumstances where the legislation is too permissive and where the legislation is too restrictive. Libertarian supporters tend to point to the individual circumstances in which it is too restrictive, and I don't disagree with some of those examples. But for everyone who says "60kph is too low" or "there's too much red tape for employers", there's also the family that lost a loved one in a speed-related car crash or who is caring for a person permanently disabled in an industrial accident. The legislation of the nanny state is invariably created in response to what people believe were "avoidable" tragedies. Should the state not seek to protect its citizens?

Also when we look at the principles of libertarianism, we see them in the context of a society long-founded in the nanny state. What we cannot easily see is what a "true libertarian" state would be like. If anyone is interested in that speculation, I recommend you read science-fiction writer Robert Heinlein, especially his book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". Heinlein was very much a libertarian in his views and his science fiction is often very thought-provoking reading. But despite being a long time fan of Heinlein's writing (and think The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is one of his great books), I have never been truly persuaded to share Heinlein's libertarian views.

Sorry, Jim, you don't get my vote!

Jim toys with standing for the Liberty & Democracy party in Ryan: Plus Perdu: election announced

Well, Jim, as a Ryan voter, you won't be getting my vote. I can see why they call themselves the Liberty party as they are definitely libertarian (the individual should decide where they should smoke, what risky behaviours they engage in, how fast they drive, and how many guns they tote) but I don't get the Democracy part of their platform, as in when when does the majority get to decide that it isn't such a great idea for the individual to do most of those things because of the harm they can do to others.

How fast should you drive? Well, we've seen idiots pulled over for 3x the speed limit and with their baby strapped in the back. I presume the driver thought it was a safe speed and that he could handle the car at such speed. Pity anyone else driving on that road, pity anyone walking across the street or cycling through the intersection, pity the child in the back seat. Now I agree that we can't necessarily stop these people doing these things, but I am not wanting a society that says "hey, that's cool, it was his libertarian right to decide that was a safe way to drive".

For that matter, why should the government decide which side of the road we drive on? Goddamnit, I wanna drive on the other side. Isn't that my right? So I end up crippled, thank heavens for the L&D's welfare policy. I mean it was a victimless crime if the only person I injure is myself, so that's cool in the L&D policy.

But still, thanks, Jim for contributing to the political debate and politial conscience raising. We all need to have our axioms challenged. But frankly, it's just reading about the L&D party that sends me screaming back to the mainstream political parties. I'm sorry John & Kevin, forgive me for doubting your ability to deliver something that approximates my social and economic needs, whatever your differences (if any).

I am guilty of declaring myself as being Apathetic about politics on Facebook. I think I need to revise that to be anti-libertarian!