It's amazing how a non-news makes the news. The RBA did not cut official interest rates and so the share market went into a bit of a spin. You can read the statement they issued but a non-change should mean no news, but here we are.
Fear of fuelling the Sydney and Melbourne real estate markets appears to have trumped hope for job-seekers and borrowers across the nation with the Reserve Bank leaving the official cash rate on hold in April rather than opting for cheaper credit to spark a new round of hiring.
But a rate cut has now become almost certain in May - just before the federal budget - after the RBA listed the pre-conditions and backed specific efforts through tougher regulation designed to "contain" house price growth being inflated by prospective landlords.
"Growth in lending to investors in housing assets is stronger than to owner-occupiers," RBA governor Glenn Steven said in his monthly statement.
"Dwelling prices continue to rise strongly in Sydney, though trends have been more varied in a number of other cities. The bank is working with other regulators to assess and contain risks that may arise from the housing market."
The unemployed go a mention in there. It's this traditional thing where if unemployment is too high, they cut rates in the opes that it promotes businesses to hiring people. You get the feeling that they're not hiring at 2.25%, would they necessarily hire more if the rates gets down to 2.00%? And keep in mind, at such historic lows, what kind of fragile business would it be to need 2.00% interest rates to decide, "hey, we'll hire more peeps!"?
On the other hand, the correlation between lowering interest rates and more investors entering the market is more direct; I mean, there is no cushion of business sentiment, it's straight up maths. So the equally blunt question is, what kind of investor gets into property on the basis that interest rates are at 2.00% but it's too hard at 2.25%? Equally weird as the business that can only hire at when interest rates are at 2.00% - but not necessarily symmetrical. I would dare say the investor balking at the border of 2.25% is far dogdier than the employer balking at the borderline of 2.00% and 2.25%.
Either way, the unemployed person is like the garni du jour next to the sandwich. They can't get a job because god only knows why and until they do, they can't get into property and even then it's doubtful that they can without shouldering greater risk or higher interest rates. It simply doesn't help them in the near-, mid-, or long-term that interest rates are cut, and it can hurt them when they go up. That's a tough spot. I was thinking as I was reading the article that the CPI under-reporting has doubly hurt the unemployed because they get less dollar value from the dole than they used to, and they're further away from ever owning any assets so they're locked into being poor in the medium term if not right out to the end of their lives.
Well done RBA!
Ideology Gives Rise To The Thought Police
I was doing the St. Johns ambulance First Aid course last week. Every time it came to dealing with the upper torso and the inner thigh, the male instructor would lay down the fact that it would be better to find a female person to do it than doing it as a male. I get it. It might be misconstrued. So, the First Aid instructor might have had a few brushes with the gender politic thing and came off second best, or maybe he witnessed the results of being misconstrue, but it was made absolutely clear there's a gender divide. Personally, I'd do exactly as instructed. I sure as hell wouldn't do anything that could be misconstrued and that would mean I would go look for a woman to deal with a female injured person. Vital minutes could be lost, but - fuck that - I'd rather not be misconstrued either.
The point is, you still have to think of gender in an emergency. Why the hell would sexism ever disappear? This led me to think that even when the final bastion of sexism is destroyed, it would just get reinvented as this kind double-think. On that note, I present to you this stupid article:
Labor's health spokeswoman Catherine King attacked Senator Leyonhjelm for another of his posts in which she said he trivialised the serious issue that is breast cancer.
Under a Catallaxy Files article titled "Feel a boob day", "DavidLeyonhjelm" wrote "It's not enough to perve. Detecting breast cancer requires palpation."
"One of the best ways to do this is to bet a woman 20 cents you can make her tits wobble without touching them. After a minute or so of close up staring at them, you grab them with both hands and make them wobble. Of course you then give her the 20 cents. It's a small price to pay for reducing breast cancer."
Senator Leyonhjelm admitted making the second comment, saying this was a "longstanding joke" between him and his wife as it had actually happened to her in real life and urged others to see the humour.
"At the time a guy actually did it to her, she giggled but I think I found it more amusing than she did," he said.
"Have you ever heard of FTITCTAJ? F--- Them If They Can't Take A Joke," he said. But Ms King said it was no laughing matter.
"Breast cancer is a tragic disease which takes a terrible toll on Australian women," said Ms King.
"Every day in Australia, on average, 40 women are diagnosed with breast cancer, and 8 women will die of this disease.
"I cannot comprehend how anyone could make light of this in such a degrading, and juvenile fashion.
Argh. It gives me a headache that they're arguing this in the Senate. If there's one thing worse than the doublethink necessitated by the political correctness, it's the unreconstructed sexism of older men who make no attempt to re-examne their position.
And wowsers.
Go On Joe, Bite The Hand That Feeds You
Down in Eden-Monaro, a famously swinging electorate, the voters have been polled and they say they are angry with tax avoidance by big corporations and are anxious about penalty rates.
Polling obtained by Fairfax Media found more than nine out of 10 people in the NSW bellwether federal seat of Eden Monaro believe the government is not doing enough to ensure large companies pay their fair share of tax.
The issue will take centre stage this week with the first public hearings of the Senate inquiry into tax avoidance. Representatives of Google, Apple, Microsoft, News Corp and miner Glencore are due to appear in front of the committee.
Almost 75 per cent of 707 people polled in Eden Monaro said big companies paid too little tax, while just 3 per cent said they paid too much. In launching the tax white paper process, Treasurer Joe Hockey flagged the need for a corporate tax cut to make the Australian business environment more internationally competitive.
You wonder if this message is getting to WTE Joe. After all, given how much the international miners donated to the Coalition, you'll never be sure that the Coalition isn't a puppet for these interests. WTE Joe is allegedly trying to get more tax out of these companies through a 'Google Tax' but it wouldn't mean much unless it was getting everybody - and by that we include Rupert Murdoch, whose Australian operations shipped 4.5billion out of Australia before tax. Will WTE have the fortitude to tax the biggest media benefactor for the Coalition. Or will he do what he did last year and go after the small fry harder while letting the big fish swim away with billions? Because being even handed with this would mean going after the very hand that feeds him and his party.
No comments:
Post a Comment