After the last board meeting, the money market was still betting on two more 25-point trimmings of the cash rate this year. Now it's down to just one cut and some of the braver commentators think there could be none, that the next move by the RBA will be up. Such a prediction is a quick way to grab a headline. It also means a rather optimistic view of the Australian economy as it implies a seamless transition from relying on resources infrastructure investment to housing and consumption for growth. That's not what the RBA is forecasting. RBA Board has kept rates at 3 per cent for fourth month in a row. I hope the optimists are right. I hope that the labour market firms over the rest of this year, that more jobs will be created and the unemployment rate remains close to 5 per cent. I hope investment in our manufacturing industry rebounds, our dollar softens a touch and enlightened governments are prepared to invest wisely in infrastructure while individuals build more housing. Unfortunately though, it's largely just hope. The evidence necessary to make it a forecast in the near term is not there.

Such is the skittishness of some market commentary that just having a little bit less to immediately worry about causes an outbreak of unbridled optimism. What governor Glenn Stevens says in today's brief statement is that the world that matters to us – Asia – either has or is stabilising. And Stevens yet again reminds anyone who's listening that the recovery in non-resources areas won't be what it used to be. “Recent information suggests that moderate growth in private consumption spending is occurring, though a return to the very strong growth of some years ago is unlikely. While the near-term outlook for investment outside the resources sector is relatively subdued, a modest increase is likely to begin over the next year. Dwelling investment is slowly increasing, with rising dwelling prices and high rental yields. Exports of natural resources are strengthening. Public spending, in contrast, is forecast to be constrained.” With inflation remaining comfortably within the RBA's target band – helped by the pressure on business to be more productive and the soft labour market – the governor provides no evidence of anything that requires tighter monetary policy. But there is hope in a few green shoots: “There are a number of indications that the substantial easing of monetary policy during late 2011 and 2012 is having an expansionary effect on the economy. Further such effects can be expected to emerge over time. On the other hand, the exchange rate, which has risen recently, remains higher than might have been expected, given the observed decline in export prices. The demand for credit has also remained low thus far, as some households and firms continue to seek lower debt levels.”

“Over time” is a vague phrase. It doesn't mean “the next few months”. Indeed, Stevens spells out that the board believes growth is “likely to be a little below trend over the coming year”. Which is why “an accommodative stance of monetary policy is appropriate” with the board able to ease further if the economy needs it. What's curious about the hawkish mood swing in parts of the commentariat is that it's at odds with various graphs that show softer monetary policy has not had the traction it enjoyed in previous easing cycles. Various commentators have been pushing the line that investment and employment growth and confidence and what-not have always been higher this many months after the start of the easing cycle. I'd suggest they might be missing two important factors. Firstly, there is an underlying restructuring of the economy going on that the RBA has been explaining for the past year and has been mentioned here often enough. Fiddling with the cash rate doesn't change that which has to run its course. Stevens alludes to it today with that bit about consumption growth not going bananas the way it was before the GFC.

Secondly, would the RBA necessarily want the same sort of rebound that it's helped engineer previously? Hopefully, we all learn from our mistakes and one that has been made in the past is that rapid monetary easing tends to set off asset bubbles. A slower recovery might prove a more sustainable one in the longer term, so that we don't swing from cutting rates to raising them. A long period of steady, lowish rates would be a more desirable outcome as business works through the pain of becoming more productive. The household sector has learned the hard way that it's a good idea to have a reasonable savings buffer, the way Mum and Dad did, so we have a return to normal in household savings and consumption will grow at around or just below disposable income growth. Loading Stable monetary policy would not be a bad thing – but it means the commentariat would have less to talk about on the first Tuesday of the month.

Michael Pascoe is a BusinessDay contributing editor