Politics with Michelle Grattan: Richard Holden says no interest rate fall likely for 12 months 43%

By Michelle Grattan0%

9/25/2024, 12:22:42 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Biased Writer Voice, and Negativity Bias, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 36.1% saturation with 287 hits. Analysis detected 2,343 faulty-reasoning hits from 795 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.3% and a BS Rank of 43% (12,672 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 57.90% of the article peer group.

For many Australians, the COVID-19 pandemic has become a fading memory as the world has moved away from lockdowns and masks. 
However, its lasting impacts, including persistent inflation, remain. 
Academic economists Steven Hamilton and Richard Holden, in their just-published book, Australia’s Pandemic Exceptionalism, examine how Australia fared in handling the COVID crisis in its economic and health policies. 
We’re joined on the podcast by Holden to talk about the book and also Australia’s economic outlook, during what has been a big week for economic news. 
On COVID, Hamilton and Holden found a mixed picture: Australia scored highly in its economic response but fell down on its vaccine procurement and provision of RATs. 
I think Treasury gave excellent advice to the Treasurer [Josh Frydenberg] and he not only […] took that advice but was able to sell it to a sometimes sceptical cabinet. 
[…] So I think it was good advice and strong leadership on the economic front. 
On the health front, I think the advice was really quite poor at times. 
I mean we make quite a point of Scott Morrison’s use of the phrase when it comes to vaccines “It’s not a race” when clearly it was a race. 
It was a race against the virus. 
It was a race to get vaccinated. 
It was a race to be able to reopen our economy. 
On the RBA and inflation, Holden agrees with this week’s decision to hold rates but believes they should have risen earlier at least once more: 
I have argued […] that late last year or early this year, the Reserve Bank should have raised rates at least one more time to get us closer to what happened in peer jurisdictions overseas, to try and beat inflation faster. 
The Reserve Bank has taken a different approach. 
They want to have interest rates peak, maybe a full percentage point lower than in places like the US, and they’re willing to tolerate inflation for longer. 
At least they’re not caving into political pressure from people like Jim Chalmers and Wayne Swan to precipitously cut interest rates and I give the governor, Michele Bullock, great credit for standing firm on that, including in her press conference remarks [on Tuesday]. 
On when interest rates will start moving down, Holden gives a grim assessment: 
My view is the most likely case is very late in 2025, somewhere about 12 months from today. 
Again, it’s going to depend on the inflation numbers and I’d like nothing more [than] for us to be well inside the target band and for interest rates to be able to be moderated. 
I think it’s a real shame that we took a different strategy in Australia to what peer jurisdictions overseas did, which was raise rates more aggressively, take our medicine, have tamed inflation and now be cutting rates. 
That’s the story in the US and several other jurisdictions. 
Holden warns against RBA Governor Michele Bullock making predictions of future rate moves: 
Governor Bullock, I think, is at risk of repeating, albeit a milder version of, the mistake that Philip Lowe made in providing forward guidance. 
Now it’s not as dramatic as saying interest rates are not going to rise until 2024, which was sort of three years of forward guidance or thereabouts. 
Governor Bullock has fallen into, I think, a little bit of a trap by saying over six weeks ago that she and her colleagues on the board didn’t think that interest rates would be cut this calendar year. 
I don’t really understand what the virtue of her doing that was. 
I think that was probably, in hindsight, something that she may regret. 
[Although] I don’t think it will do any real damage because I think it’s a prediction that’s incredibly likely to come true. 
On the government potentially making changes to negative gearing, Holden outlines why it could be a good idea: 
Getting rid of negative gearing would put potential owner-occupiers on a level playing field with investors at an auction. 
I think it’ll be very good news for people trying to move from the rental market into being owner-occupiers; I think it’ll be good news for the classic Australian dream. 
To be fair about it, the existence of negative gearing is something that puts downward pressure on rents. 
So negative gearing, in a funny way, is good for renters who are always going to rent but bad for renters who want to buy. 
So there are pros and cons. 
It was a good idea eight or nine years ago. 
I think it’s still a good idea today and I think it’s interesting that the government seems to be at least floating the test balloon. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 36.1%Michelle Grattan: 12.4%The Conversation: 3.0%Confirmation Bias36.1%This article: 5.7%Michelle Grattan: 3.1%The Conversation: 0.7%Anchoring Bias5.7%This article: 2.6%Michelle Grattan: 0.7%The Conversation: 2.7%Availability Heuristic2.6%This article: 4.7%Michelle Grattan: 1.2%The Conversation: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic4.7%This article: 9.3%Michelle Grattan: 8.4%The Conversation: 1.0%Hindsight Bias9.3%This article: 5.0%Michelle Grattan: 4.5%The Conversation: 3.2%Overconfidence Bias5.0%This article: 7.3%Michelle Grattan: 3.1%The Conversation: 5.3%Framing Effect7.3%This article: 3.8%Michelle Grattan: 0.9%The Conversation: 0.4%Loss Aversion3.8%This article: 3.5%Michelle Grattan: 1.7%The Conversation: 0.5%Status Quo Bias3.5%This article: 1.3%Michelle Grattan: 0.3%The Conversation: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect1.3%This article: 15.6%Michelle Grattan: 3.9%The Conversation: 2.3%Optimism Bias15.6%This article: 5.9%Michelle Grattan: 1.5%The Conversation: 1.8%Pessimism Bias5.9%This article: 21.5%Michelle Grattan: 5.4%The Conversation: 6.1%Negativity Bias21.5%This article: 3.8%Michelle Grattan: 0.9%The Conversation: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Michelle Grattan: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Grattan: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Grattan: 2.7%The Conversation: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Grattan: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 11.1%Michelle Grattan: 4.1%The Conversation: 1.3%Halo Effect11.1%This article: 0.0%Michelle Grattan: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Grattan: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.5%Michelle Grattan: 1.6%The Conversation: 1.1%Recency Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Michelle Grattan: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 1.5%Michelle Grattan: 0.4%The Conversation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias1.5%This article: 5.4%Michelle Grattan: 3.6%The Conversation: 0.4%Ad Hominem5.4%This article: 0.0%Michelle Grattan: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.3%Michelle Grattan: 2.1%The Conversation: 4.2%Appeal to Authority8.3%This article: 10.7%Michelle Grattan: 2.7%The Conversation: 1.7%False Dilemma10.7%This article: 0.0%Michelle Grattan: 0.8%The Conversation: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Grattan: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.9%Michelle Grattan: 4.8%The Conversation: 4.8%Hasty Generalization11.9%This article: 0.0%Michelle Grattan: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Grattan: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.5%Michelle Grattan: 3.8%The Conversation: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion7.5%This article: 3.6%Michelle Grattan: 0.9%The Conversation: 0.9%Begging the Question3.6%This article: 13.6%Michelle Grattan: 3.4%The Conversation: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.6%This article: 0.0%Michelle Grattan: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Grattan: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 3.1%Michelle Grattan: 0.8%The Conversation: 0.6%Appeal to Nature3.1%This article: 0.0%Michelle Grattan: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.9%Michelle Grattan: 0.5%The Conversation: 1.9%Anecdotal1.9%This article: 0.0%Michelle Grattan: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 35.6%Michelle Grattan: 8.9%The Conversation: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)35.6%This article: 0.0%Michelle Grattan: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.5%Michelle Grattan: 0.9%The Conversation: 0.3%Middle Ground3.5%This article: 1.5%Michelle Grattan: 0.4%The Conversation: 0.0%Personal Incredulity1.5%This article: 0.0%Michelle Grattan: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Grattan: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Grattan: 0.0%The Conversation: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.6%Michelle Grattan: 0.9%The Conversation: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection3.6%This article: 35.3%Michelle Grattan: 8.8%The Conversation: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice35.3%This article: 3.8%Michelle Grattan: 0.9%The Conversation: 2.1%Indoctrination3.8%This article: 0.0%Michelle Grattan: 0.0%The Conversation: 1.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Grattan: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Grattan: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

795 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker51%attributed speech387writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Holden • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageRichard Holden • 18 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Holden • 34 words • 100.0% coverageRichard Holden • 37 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Holden • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageRichard Holden • 24 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Holden • 27 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Holden • 38 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Holden • 12 words • 100.0% coverageRichard Holden • 12 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Holden • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Holden • 19 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Holden • 30 words • 100.0% coverageRichard Holden • 18 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Holden • 25 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Holden • 6 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Holden • 10 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Holden • 25 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Richard Holden

100%flagged-word coverage
408 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice-25.8 ptsWriter: 48.6%Richard Holden: 22.8%22.8%Quote-first Misdirection-7.5 ptsWriter: 7.5%Richard Holden: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+7.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Richard Holden: 7.4%7.4%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.