It was cheap money from the Reserve Bank to the retail banks to get cash out into the economy.
And in another of those "whoops, with the benefit of hindsight we would have done it differently" comments, they now say that they should have put more flexibility into the programme.
Why?
Because the need for banks to access discounted money has long been over, and we are now in the middle of an inflation crisis because of cheap money, lavish spending and no labour and closed borders.
In other words - whatever it is you do, do it for the period it needs to be done and no longer.
So why did it go longer than needed?
Because, 1) The Reserve Bank didn’t put any flexibility in.
And, 2) Once they realised that, they argued it is better to keep to your word if you said you would do something.
It reminds me of the wage subsidy programme by the Government. They swore black and blue that all that mattered was to get money out there to save jobs. And as a headline, as a broad concept, it wasn't a bad idea.
But what about the detail? What about the flexibility?
How hard would it have been for the Reserve Bank to say "this is the deal for now but given none of us has a clue how this all unfolds, we retain the right to change things if matters require us to".
Honestly, is that hard?
Surely someone at some point thought about that?
Equally, the Government's wage subsidy - should you in future not actually need the help, should over the next financial year you turn out to be profitable, you will need to pay back some, or all, of the money.
Not every business was going to suffer. Some businesses were going to do well.
Once again, how hard would it have been to hand the money out with a rider?
How many meetings were held where a bit of basic common sense was clearly completely absent?
And as a result, how many billions have been funnelled out for no good reason for the next generations to have to try and pay back, because the people with the power and the responsibility never took the job seriously enough? Or if they did, never had the skills to execute it properly?
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings.
In other words - whatever it is you do, do it for the period it needs to be done and no longer.
So why did it go longer than needed?
Because, 1) The Reserve Bank didn’t put any flexibility in.
And, 2) Once they realised that, they argued it is better to keep to your word if you said you would do something.
It reminds me of the wage subsidy programme by the Government. They swore black and blue that all that mattered was to get money out there to save jobs. And as a headline, as a broad concept, it wasn't a bad idea.
But what about the detail? What about the flexibility?
How hard would it have been for the Reserve Bank to say "this is the deal for now but given none of us has a clue how this all unfolds, we retain the right to change things if matters require us to".
Honestly, is that hard?
Surely someone at some point thought about that?
Equally, the Government's wage subsidy - should you in future not actually need the help, should over the next financial year you turn out to be profitable, you will need to pay back some, or all, of the money.
Not every business was going to suffer. Some businesses were going to do well.
Once again, how hard would it have been to hand the money out with a rider?
How many meetings were held where a bit of basic common sense was clearly completely absent?
And as a result, how many billions have been funnelled out for no good reason for the next generations to have to try and pay back, because the people with the power and the responsibility never took the job seriously enough? Or if they did, never had the skills to execute it properly?
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings.
No comments:
Post a Comment