Connect with us

News

New Zealand raises rates by most in 22 years on surging inflation

Published

on

New Zealand’s central financial institution raised rates of interest by half a share level on Wednesday, its largest improve in 22 years, following worries about surging inflation exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The Reserve Financial institution of New Zealand lifted its official rate of interest by 50 foundation factors to 1.5 per cent, bringing ahead a rise that it had flagged can be made this yr.

The choice was introduced a day after the US reported that inflation hit 8.5 per cent in March, rising at its quickest tempo in 40 years, as provide chains struggled to maintain up with a post-pandemic surge in demand and the conflict in Ukraine boosted commodity costs.

The RBNZ financial coverage committee met on February 23, the day earlier than Russia invaded Ukraine, and lifted charges by 25 foundation factors. It additionally forecast additional tightening in 2022.

However the committee stated it had introduced ahead its determination in response to “rising inflation expectations”. The latest inflation determine, from December 2021, was 5.9 per cent, up from 1.4 per cent a yr earlier. The committee expects inflation to peak at 7 per cent within the first half of 2022.

Advertisement

“The extent of world financial exercise continues to generate rising inflation pressures, exacerbated by ongoing provide disruptions largely pushed by Covid-19,” the financial coverage committee stated.

“The Russian invasion of Ukraine has considerably added to those provide disruptions, inflicting costs to spike in internationally traded commodities and vitality.”

New Zealand started rising charges by increments of 25 foundation factors final October, after holding the official money fee at 0.25 per cent for 18 months.

Wednesday’s fee rise coincided with New Zealand opening its borders to Australian vacationers for the primary time since a quick “journey bubble” operated between the international locations in 2021 earlier than new coronavirus outbreaks prompted Wellington to close its borders once more.

Saul Eslake, an Australian economist, stated New Zealand’s rise “underscores the seriousness with which they view the near-term inflation outlook and their dedication to reign it” and anticipated one other 50 foundation factors rise subsequent month.

Advertisement

Together with international inflationary pressures, Eslake stated the RBNZ was responding to a decent employment market, a low goal inflation fee and a mandate to think about home costs in financial coverage choices.

Richard Yetsenga, chief economist at ANZ, stated the RBNZ was “taking part in catch-up” with unexpectedly speedy inflation and in addition predicted the financial institution would elevate charges by the identical quantity subsequent month.

“New Zealand is displaying a sample of tending to get extra aggressive because the cycle goes on,” he stated.

“One of many parts [of today’s announcement] appears to be a sign that by lifting 50 foundation factors now, hopefully that reduces the quantity they should hike over the cycle.”

Australia, New Zealand’s second-biggest buying and selling accomplice, has stored rates of interest on maintain at a document low of 0.1 per cent, however has signalled that it might elevate charges throughout the subsequent few months although inflation is low by international requirements, at 3.5 per cent.

Advertisement

Eslake stated he anticipated the Reserve Financial institution of Australia to lift charges in June, including that the nation had been partly insulated from value rises by weak wage development and an financial system that depends on home coal somewhat than imported gasoline and subsequently was not topic to the vitality value jumps noticed in Europe.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

NFL hit with $4.7bn antitrust verdict over ‘Sunday Ticket’ game package

Published

on

NFL hit with $4.7bn antitrust verdict over ‘Sunday Ticket’ game package

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

A California jury has found the US National Football League violated antitrust laws and ordered it to pay $4.7bn in damages to customers who bought a package of its live games over satellite television, in a landmark case that could reshape the market for sports rights distribution.

The verdict comes in a federal class-action lawsuit brought by subscribers to the NFL’s Sunday Ticket package, who alleged the league’s out-of-market games violated antitrust rules by restricting competition for certain Sunday afternoon fixtures to pay-TV.

The case, which was tried in a federal court in Los Angeles, may have wide-reaching consequences for how live sports rights are bundled. It also delivers a significant blow to the world’s richest sports league, as the fines could be tripled under US federal antitrust law.

Advertisement

The NFL said it was “disappointed” with the verdict. “We continue to believe that our media distribution strategy . . . is by far the most fan friendly distribution model in all of sports and entertainment.” It said it would “contest” the verdict and maintained the claims were “baseless and without merit”.

In 1961, US Congress passed the Sports Broadcasting Act, which gives professional sports leagues such as the NFL an exemption from antitrust laws in order to pool sales of its media broadcast rights. Underpinning the act is the idea that professional teams including the Dallas Cowboys and the New York Giants operate as franchises of one business unit — the league — and as such media distribution of their fixtures is not in competition with one another.

Still, there are four time zones across the continental US, and the majority of NFL fixtures take place simultaneously on Sunday afternoons. That has created demand for so-called out-of-network games, which the league sells as its Sunday Ticket package. Viewers can watch fixtures of local teams on their regional Fox or CBS free-to-air network, but must purchase Sunday Ticket to watch games outside their home markets.

Underscoring the seriousness of the case and its implication for the future of live sports rights, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and Cowboys owner Jerry Jones were among the witnesses testifying for the league during the trial. Goodell told the jury it was the first time he has presented under oath in a federal courtroom since he began his term in 2006, according to a report from the Associated Press.

The league maintained Sunday Ticket is a premium product with premium pricing, and as such would not undercut viewership for free-to-air local games. The package costs between $349 and $449 per year, depending on whether consumers have a subscription with distributor YouTube TV. Sunday Ticket was distributed by satellite provider DirecTV from 1994 until 2023, when the league awarded the rights to Google’s YouTube TV in a record $14bn contract.

Advertisement

The lawsuit was brought by a San Francisco sports bar called the Mucky Duck in 2015 and has since been expanded to a class-action representing millions of subscribers and tens of thousands of similar establishments. The plaintiffs have highlighted, among other evidence, a 2017 internal NFL memo titled “New Frontier”, which suggested the league could divvy up Sunday fixtures across cable channels rather than pool them to satellite TV.

Unlike other US professional leagues, including Major League Baseball and the National Basketball Association, NFL teams do not offer individual TV packages. In his trial testimony, Cowboys owner Jones said he was “completely against each team doing TV deals”, according to the AP, despite the fact that a theoretical direct-to-consumer offering for his team — estimated to be worth $9bn by Forbes, the most valuable professional club in global sport — would likely rake in subscriptions.

Continue Reading

News

At the border, migrants ‘wait and see’ as encounters with Border Patrol dip 40%

Published

on

At the border, migrants ‘wait and see’ as encounters with Border Patrol dip 40%

Border patrol agents pick up migrants waiting to be processed in Dulzara, California on June 25, 2024.

Zaydee Sanchez for NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Zaydee Sanchez for NPR

Jacumba Valley, Calif. — Encounters between U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and migrants crossing the southern border without authorization decreased by 40% in the three weeks since new asylum restrictions took effect.

In announcing the executive actions on June 4, President Biden said these measures were needed to bring “order to the border.”

His administration points to the latest statistics as proof that the new policies are succeeding.

Advertisement

“The president’s actions are working because of their tough response to illegal crossings,” Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas said at a press conference in Tucson, Arizona on Wednesday.

“We are removing more noncitizens without a legal basis to stay here.”

But the number of people arrested while attempting to cross the border declined over the past five months, and not all of that is attributable to U.S. policy. Mexico also scaled up its enforcement and has been stopping migrants from trekking north toward the U.S.

Mayorkas says the administration has doubled the number of expedited removals in the last three weeks, with more than 100 international repatriation flights to 20 countries. 

According to the DHS, arrests haven’t been this low since January 2021.

Advertisement

Crossings are fewer but still hazardous for those who make the journey

So far on the California border, there’s been a noticeable shift: up until last month, the San Diego sector had been the place with most undocumented migrant crossings.

A migrant woman and her nine-year-old hold each other as they wait for border patrol agents in Dulzara, California. The family of three migrated from Ecuador and is hoping to seek asylum in the U.S. June 25, 2024.

A migrant woman and her nine-year-old hold each other as they wait for border patrol agents in Dulzara, California. The family of three migrated from Ecuador and is hoping to seek asylum in the U.S. June 25, 2024.

Zaydee Sanchez for NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Zaydee Sanchez for NPR

A sandal can be seen through the busses of the desert in Dulzura, California, on June 24, 2024.

A sandal can be seen through the busses of the desert in Dulzura, California, on June 24, 2024.

Zaydee Sanchez for NPR


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Zaydee Sanchez for NPR

A couple of migrants wait to be processed by border patrol agents in Dulzara, California on June 25, 2024.

A couple of migrants wait to be processed by border patrol agents in Dulzara, California on June 25, 2024.

Zaydee Sanchez for NPR


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Zaydee Sanchez for NPR

Just weeks ago, hundreds of migrants still waited in campsites scattered throughout California’s Jacumba Valley, a remote area 80 miles east of San Diego. There, they could wait to be picked up by Border Patrol and petition for asylum.

Advertisement

Lately, these locations look mostly empty, and makeshift tents flap in the wind. But some people still cross the border and end up here — including a family with three small children NPR encountered at one of the sweltering desert camps.

One of the children, a 7-year-old, was seriously dehydrated and seemed about to pass out. As humanitarian volunteers gave him first aid, the child’s parents explained that the family had walked for eight hours through the desert.

The journey was challenging– they evaded snakes and mountain lions– but staying in their native Mexico was not an option.

The family owns an auto repair shop in the southern state of Michoacán, where they were extorted and feared for their lives.

The mother, Jazmin Mora, says the family first fled to Tijuana, hoping to make it to the United States where they have family. But after just one month in the Mexican border city, they encountered violence there too, so they decided to try to cross.

Advertisement
A mattress at the southern border in Jacumba Hot Springs, California, on June 24, 2024.

A mattress at the southern border in Jacumba Hot Springs, California, on June 24, 2024.

Zaydee Sanchez for NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Zaydee Sanchez for NPR

Advertisement

Jazmin Mora puts a cold patch on her forehead to cool down as she and her family wait for border patrol agents in Jacumba Hot Springs, California on June 24, 2024.

Jazmin Mora puts a cold patch on her forehead to cool down as she and her family wait for border patrol agents in Jacumba Hot Springs, California on June 24, 2024.

Zaydee Sanchez for NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Zaydee Sanchez for NPR

A border patrol agent approaches the informal migrant camp in Jacumba Hot Springs, California, as a child washes her hands on June 24, 2024.

A border patrol agent approaches the informal migrant camp in Jacumba Hot Springs, California, as a child washes her hands on June 24, 2024.

Zaydee Sanchez for NPR


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Zaydee Sanchez for NPR

“We moved around to several other places, but the reality is all Mexico is unsafe for everybody,” said Mora.

Her family’s story embodies what immigration analysts have told NPR about the newer border measures: deterrence policies alone do not work to curtail undocumented immigration in the long run.

Advertisement

Implications for the U.S. presidential election

Although the Biden administration touts these policies as a success, migrants continue to arrive at the border, although they stay on the Mexican side to ‘wait and see’ when to cross.

The announcement of lower numbers of border encounters and higher numbers of removals comes just before the first presidential debate on Thursday, in which immigration is expected to be front and center.

Far away from the politics of Washington D.C., neither migrants nor the locals had much to say about the border policies. They told NPR they see it as politics as usual –no real, lasting solutions.

Continue Reading

News

US Supreme Court rejects Sackler liability releases in Purdue bankruptcy

Published

on

US Supreme Court rejects Sackler liability releases in Purdue bankruptcy

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

The US Supreme Court has invalidated a measure in Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy that would shield members of the company’s founding Sackler family from future civil liability in exchange for a $6bn contribution, in a closely watched case involving the maker of the opioid OxyContin.

The Department of Justice had sought to invalidate the comprehensive liability releases granted to the Sacklers, saying they could not be justified under existing US law. The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed in a 5-4 ruling.

But the high court’s majority stressed that its decision was a “narrow one” that did not “call into question consensual third-party releases offered in connection with a bankruptcy reorganisation plan”.

Advertisement

This is a developing story

Continue Reading

Trending