Richo ... it is documented and has been recognised ( though NOT advertised ) by the Liberal Party .. that interest rates, DID indeed reach 22% UNDER Howard AS TREASURER...
No point denying it .
EDIT .. re the post above me .. malcolm fraser is far far better a man that Howard ever could be .. Howard screwed up Fraser didn't ( with the exception of appointing Howard as treasurer)
EDIT #2 Now Barney OF course lemons and oranges CAN be compared .. they are BOTH citrus fruits and are both therefore at risk of being damaged by disease caused by fungus/bacteria and viruses .. Just as the Australian Way of life is at risk from being destroyed by Howard, Costello and Abbott
2007-11-09 19:24:43
·
answer #1
·
answered by ll_jenny_ll here AND I'M BAC 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
Let's be fair here. Fraser was one of the worst PM's Australia has had. Unfortunately, John Howard was Treasurer during this time but, Treasurers must work with what has been offered and accepted by the PM. There is more proof that the issues of the Fraser Gov't, were a direct reflection on Fraser and shouldn't be attributed to John Howard. Fraser and Howard didn't/don't like each other and this is due to John Howard trying to get positive programs in place that Fraser rejected. Fraser brought down the Whitlam Gov't. (Best thing that he did!). Fraser should be hated by Whitlam but, in actual fact, they are best friends. Most conservative voters see Fraser as an extension of the Labor Party and not a true Liberal.
"During Howard's tenure as Treasurer, the 90-day cash rate peaked at 21% on 8 April 1982, while home loan mortage rates were capped at 13.5%, and inflation peaked at 12.5% in September 1982." Source: Wikipedia.
This also proves that the offical "Home Loan" interest rates were actually lower (3.50%) during John Howard's tenure as Treasurer than Bob Hawke's period as PM and that incompetent, arrogant Keating (17%) but, was 3.25% higher than under Whitlam (10.25%). These figures are based on "at their peak".
When speaking about interest rates, it's usually the "Home Loan" Rates that are used, until you want to attack John Howard then it's the 90-day cash Rate. Be consistant!
2007-11-09 15:26:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Not sure of where the other get his info but I lived with a mortgage through that time and interest rate never went beyond 13.5%. The fraser government actually capped the rates at 13.5% to combat economic issues of the time. I'm glad the reserve bank now has the independance to do what is needed. Howard and Rudd aside there other factors creating the rises we are seeing such as drought, people over spending, booming economy. Hoppefully our economy is strong enough to hold of the effect of the US slowly slipping into recession cause this potentially could see further rate rises as our dollars continues to climb.
2007-11-09 14:17:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by Richo 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
can u tell me what the 90 day cash rate under hawk keating and whitlam were 30% 40% what about the deficit get real don't compare lemons with oranges.
2007-11-10 10:29:09
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
When John Howard was treasurer in the Fraser Government, interest rates hit 22%. This fact is curiously absent in the current debate :)
2007-11-09 13:11:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by theotherguy80 1
·
2⤊
1⤋
Finally thankyou mramazin for pointing out the difference of 90 day cash rates and morgage rates I agree with you, some consistancy would be great.
2007-11-10 16:22:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by wake up 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Fraser was forced to cap mortage rates because the Libs were doing so poorly! The overall interest rates peaked at 21.4% at the time, the highest in post-war history... Howard was treasurer.
2007-11-09 15:09:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by splurkles 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
i do no longer think of it is the Tea social gathering's fault, yet I do have self assurance you have an extremely slender view of historic previous and a constrained information of politics. historic previous is extra advantageous than merely the previous 3 years of existence. As for policies, we merely start up seeing the outcomes of distinctive policies 10+ years while they have been enabled. So what happens now's the end results of the post-2001 Bush era, what befell in the Bush era is because of Clinton, what befell in the Clinton years became because of Reagan's policies, etc.
2016-10-02 00:15:12
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
ahhhh yeas the cave man has returned, barney......
anyway, howard presidfed over the HIGHEST cahs rate in Australias post war history.....hmmm, top bloke he was....NOT
go kevin07
2007-11-11 03:26:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋