Type "the RBA needs to" into Google and you'll get a multitude of answers.
"... have an ACTU representative", "... consider a prudent 'financial stability' interest rate hike" and "... cut rates multiple times this year" are the first three results served up.
They are all, in effect, just commentators, analysts or lobbyists of one stripe or another trying to influence central bank policy – or at least feel better by giving a public pronouncement. It's natural and healthy in a functioning capitalist democracy for that to occur.
The Reserve Bank, the US Federal Reserve and their respective international counterparts, though, are usually smart enough to pay scant regard to these demands; they have strong mandates, providing them with their rules of engagement – and they're loathe to abandon their posts just because of calls for them to do otherwise. That's as it should be.
More recently, though, it's hard to escape the feeling that the US Fed, in particular, is starting to fall victim to a certain type of public lobbying. Nothing untoward or murky, mind you, just a desire to please.
The rate rise you're having…
Those of us of a certain age will recall the advert for the non-alcoholic drink Clayton's. It was, the voiceover told us, the drink you have when you're not having a drink.
And recently the Fed has given us the rate rise you have, when you're not having a rate rise. By conducting press conferences, issuing statements including expectations for future interest rate movements, the Fed is trying to be transparent and informative. Which is to the good.
But by telegraphing its potential moves, the Fed is doing two things: it's removing the important element of surprise, and is setting itself up for criticism when that imagined future doesn't pan out.
The Fed (and the Reserve Bank) correctly understand that the markets want certainty. The problem is that such certainty leads to perverse outcomes. It is the presence of uncertainty that introduces caution into financial transactions. Certainty – or the perception of same – is the equivalent to the glassy surface of the water at the beach which belies a dangerous rip just out of sight. "Come on in. The water's fine," it beckons. And then, trouble hits.
Financial markets are an incredibly important part of our economy. And, increasingly, given our high levels of growing share ownership, an important part of our political machinery, too.
Prime ministers and presidents spoke directly to the sharemarket carnage caused by the global financial crisis in a way that would have been totally foreign perhaps 20 years earlier. And of course, US President Donald Trump has made a point of mentioning the sharemarket regularly (on Twitter, of course) in his short time in office.
But the Reserve Bank, like the regulators ASIC and APRA, needs to remember that it is there not to please the market, but to keep it in check. Not to be cheerleaders (or doomsayers), but to perform the functions that deliver structurally healthy markets.
Foolish takeaway
You might have seen what I did there: another "RBA needs to…" statement of my own. So let me replace it with a better one: The Reserve Bank (and the Fed) need to stop worrying about what other people say they need to do, and focus solely on the regulatory responsibilities they've been handed.
Oh sure, the markets will squeal because of a lack of perceived "certainty", but that's to the good – especially if it means a little more caution creeps back into our financial decisions. After all, nothing is so unpredictable as certainty.
New report: The "blue chips" of tomorrow aren't the blue chips of yesterday. If you want to look forward rather than backward, we've released our three best ideas for 2017. Click here to learn more.
Scott Phillips is the Motley Fool's director of research. Twitter: @TMFScottP. Email: ScottTheFool@gmail.com. The Motley Fool's purpose is to educate, amuse and enrich investors.