In case you were more inclined to watch … literally anything else last night … here’s a brief overview of what the Deputy RBA Governor is Guy Debelle said about the hot real estate market.
Basically, he said, that is really not a problem of the bank. Unemployment is.
Speaking through the Zoom audience in front of an audience in Perth, Debelle said lowering interest rates to record lows – which will reduce debt for both people and businesses – is designed to kick-start economic activity.
One thinks: companies can borrow cheaply in order to expand and employ more people. People can borrow money to spend more in the economy. When people spend freely, companies can raise prices a bit (this is inflation) and that helps those companies grow and employ more people … who then have more money to spend freely in the economy … the cycle continues.
But another byproduct of low interest rates is that people borrow money cheaply to buy houses and flats, forcing prices in major Australian cities. (The average price of a property in Sydney is now reached $ 1.3 million.)
But from an RBA perspective, the government has the tools to address the problem, not the central bank.
I don’t think that monetary policy is one of the tools …
Monetary policy is focused on supporting economic recovery and achieving employment and inflation targets.
There could be types of tools that the state needs to make to make housing more affordable tax treatment, different rules on banks that issue housing loans (via the regulator), or how the state and local authorities release and zone the country.
But while the RBA is keeping an eye on the housing market, in case people start failing to meet mortgages, the unexpected Covid-19 shock means the bank is mostly focused on getting people employed.
And it deserves a policy of low interest rates as the reason why we are in a good place now entering the budget for next week.
It is important to remember that, although housing prices may not rise so fast without a monetary stimulus, unemployment would definitely be significantly higher without a monetary stimulus.
Anyway, let’s get back to regular programming.
The Australian citizen has not yet been told what charges he is facing, Australian officials have just seen him and he has not yet met with his lawyer, although he has spent 30 days behind bars in Baghdad.
Australian officials visited Robert Pether for the first time on Monday, the 26th day of his detention, and now they are asking if he can get a meeting with his lawyer.
Pether’s wife Desree spoke to her husband on Monday, their second call during a four-week ordeal, and said he was “desperate” and had both been betrayed. Iraq and Australia.
Desree said she did deeply frustrated by time Australian officials needed to visit her husband and start asking the Iraqi authorities to allow a meeting with his lawyer.
You can read the complete story below:
The ABC accuses Porter’s lawyers of trying to control the reporting
ABC Advisor, Renee Enbom, filed if Porter manages to suppress defense schedules (on a provisional basis, pending a deletion hearing), and then Porter’s response alleging malice against the ABC should also be suppressed.
The effect of Mr. Porter’s position is as follows: the public would not be informed of the manner in which ABC and Milligan presented their defense, [because the schedules would not be public]; but the public would be given 13 pages of allegations of conduct Louise Milligan and ABC, which he says beat one of them. It is an attempt to control how this process is reported.
True Jayne Jagot she disagrees, she says “this does not convince her”, because the interests of open justice are “best served” if she puts “at her disposal everything that is not subject to arguments, it should be deleted”.
It seems that Porter, because he asked for the bits to be deleted, could suppress it for a few weeks; but the response to which Milligan and ABC maliciously published the story will be made public because their lawyers did not sign up to delete them.
Enbom claims it now Geoffrey Rush case of defamation the interlocutory application to extend the suppression of the defense until the application for erasure was not successful.
Porter’s lawyers dispute that, noting that there was a temporary order until the hearing on the deletion.