The Bank of Japan has renewed its pledge to keep bond yields at zero, sending the yen lower and widening the policy gap with other central banks that have raised interest rates to tame inflation.
The BoJ’s decision to stick to its ultra-loose monetary policy exacerbates a global divergence in yields after the US Federal Reserve raised its main interest rate by 0.75 percentage points this week, prompting Switzerland and the UK to also increase rates.
The BoJ on Friday kept overnight interest rates at minus 0.1 per cent. It said it would conduct daily purchases of 10-year bonds at a yield of 0.25 per cent, showing no willingness to let bonds trade in a wider band.
The decision triggered a sharp dip in the yen to ¥134.63 against the dollar, extending what has been a phase of exceptionally volatile trading.
The yen’s recent plunge to historic lows against the dollar has placed the central bank in an awkward position ahead of elections for Japan’s upper house of parliament in July.
The BoJ believes that underlying demand in the economy remains too weak to tighten monetary policy. But the soaring price of imported goods has upset the public and is likely to feature prominently during the campaign.
Core consumer prices, which exclude volatile food prices, have risen at their fastest pace in seven years, hitting the BoJ’s target with growth of 2.1 per cent in April.
But there has almost been no follow-on from rising prices to higher wages. That has made the BoJ more confident than its counterparts in Europe and the US that the current bout of inflation will be transitory and that it needs to continue supporting the economy with monetary easing measures.
The BoJ made an unusual and carefully worded reference to the currency. “It is necessary to pay due attention to developments in financial and foreign exchange markets and their impact on Japan’s economic activity and prices,” it said.
At a news conference, BoJ governor Haruhiko Kuroda did not repeat previous remarks that the weaker yen was broadly positive for the economy. “It is desirable for foreign exchange rates to reflect economic fundamentals and to move in a stable manner. The recent sharp depreciation of the yen is negative for the economy,” he said.
Some analysts had forecast that Kuroda might seek to address the recent plunge in the yen by tweaking policy. When that did not happen, traders in Tokyo said the yen may have further to fall.
Benjamin Shatil, a foreign exchange strategist at JPMorgan, said the decision showed the BoJ was “digging its heels in once again” but the central bank appeared to harden its tone slightly by saying it would pay attention to developments in financial and foreign exchange markets.
The implication for the yen, he said, is that a move into the high ¥130s against the dollar is now in plain sight and could even hit ¥140.
“With the BoJ apparently impervious to the wave of hawkish global central bank capitulation, unconcerned about broadening imported price pressures in Japan, and apparently willing to purchase the entire stock of [10-year Japanese government bonds] if necessary to preserve yield curve control, pain for the yen looks set to go from acute to chronic,” he said.
Tetsufumi Yamakawa, head of Japan economic research at Barclays, said he expected the BoJ to revise its YCC framework as early as July if the yen weakened more dramatically.
“It would have raised questions about the BoJ’s credibility if it immediately reversed its policy. That would have risked giving the image that it had caved in to market pressure,” he said.
The BoJ’s decision comes as trading in Japanese government bonds continued to mount a direct challenge to the central bank’s resolve, particularly its commitment to maintain yield curve control by keeping yields on the benchmark 10-year note within 0.25 per cent either side of zero.
After that line was repeatedly breached this week, the BoJ stepped in with massive purchases of JGBs on top of the standard offer of unlimited daily buying that it uses to reassure the market of its commitment to the policy.
The 10-year JGB yield touched 0.265 per cent on Friday, marking its highest level since January 2016.
Original Article: ft.com
Shoppers Astonished As Price of Lurpak Butter Soars to Eye-watering Sum
CUSTOMERS have shared their shock after a 500g pack of Lurpak shot up in price to an eye-watering new level.
Key Passages From the US Supreme Court on Abortion Rights
The US Supreme Court on Friday struck down Roe vs Wade, the 1973 ruling that guaranteed a constitutional right to abortion, in one of its most consequential decisions on civil rights in years.
The arguments on both sides are lengthy and involved, and the final ruling comprised five separate opinions spanning 213 pages: the opinion of the court, two concurring opinions, an opinion agreeing only with the court’s judgment and a dissenting opinion.
Below are some of the most notable passages from each.
Opinion of the court, written by Samuel Alito
Much of Alito’s majority opinion matched a leaked draft from February 10, which was published by Politico in May.
To begin, Alito argued that the court overstepped when first deciding Roe.
As Justice Byron White aptly put it in his dissent, the [Roe] decision represented the “exercise of raw judicial power”, and it sparked a national controversy that has embittered our political culture for a half-century.
He argued that the case was wrongly decided, and poked at its reasoning. (He also cited Planned Parenthood vs Casey, another abortion case that affirmed Roe.)
Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.
Alito argued that there is no right to an abortion rooted in American “history and tradition”.
We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty”.
He reiterated the Roe court’s “errors” and lamented that the issue had been taken out of the hands of those who opposed abortion rights.
Roe was on a collision course with the constitution from the day it was decided . . . and the errors do not concern some arcane corner of the law of little importance to the American people. Rather, wielding nothing but “raw judicial power,” the court usurped the power to address a question of profound moral and social importance that the constitution unequivocally leaves for the people . . . The court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who dissented in any respect from Roe . . . Roe and Casey represent an error that cannot be allowed to stand.
Finally, Alito wrote that court does not know, and need not consider, the implications of its decision.
We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today’s decision over-ruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision. We can only do our job, which is to interpret the law, apply longstanding principles of stare decisis, and decide this case accordingly.
We therefore hold that the constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Roe and Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives.
Concurring opinion by Clarence Thomas
Thomas, widely considered to be the most conservative justice, agreed. He also said the court should perhaps go further and reconsider its decisions on contraception, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage, citing Supreme Court cases relevant to each issue.
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents.
Concurring opinion by Brett Kavanaugh
Kavanaugh, another conservative, wrote to share his “additional views”. He emphasised that the court was returning the issue of abortion to the people, rather than outlawing it.
To be clear, then, the court’s decision today does not outlaw abortion throughout the United States. On the contrary, the court’s decision properly leaves the question of abortion for the people and their elected representatives in the democratic process.
He claimed the constitution was “neutral” when it comes to abortion rights.
In sum, the constitution is neutral on the issue of abortion and allows the people and their elected representatives to address the issue through the democratic process. In my respectful view, the court in Roe therefore erred by taking sides on the issue of abortion.
And he wrote that court itself must be “scrupulously neutral” — a point to which the court’s liberals took exception.
In my judgment, on the issue of abortion, the constitution is neither pro-life nor pro-choice. The constitution is neutral, and this court likewise must be scrupulously neutral. The court today properly heeds the constitutional principle of judicial neutrality and returns the issue of abortion to the people and their elected representatives in the democratic process.
Opinion by John Roberts, concurring in judgment
Roberts, the chief justice, concurred with the court’s specific judgment upholding Mississippi’s 15-week restriction on abortions, but not with the dramatic scope of its decision. He called it a “serious jolt to the legal system”.
I would take a more measured course . . . Our abortion precedents describe the right at issue as a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That right should therefore extend far enough to ensure a reasonable opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further.
He reiterated that overturning Roe was unnecessary to deciding the case.
I would decide the question we granted review to answer — whether the previously recognised abortion right bars all abortion restrictions prior to viability, such that a ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy is necessarily unlawful. The answer to that question is no, and there is no need to go further to decide this case.
Dissenting opinion by Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan
The impassioned dissent by the court’s three-member liberal wing begins by pointing to the “half a century” during which Roe vs Wade “protected the liberty and equality of women”.
Respecting a woman as an autonomous being, and granting her full equality, meant giving her substantial choice over this most personal and most consequential of all life decisions.
They said they fear the “draconian restrictions” and punishments that states may now mete out.
Enforcement of all these draconian restrictions will also be left largely to the states’ devices. A state can of course impose criminal penalties on abortion providers, including lengthy prison sentences. But some states will not stop there. Perhaps, in the wake of today’s decision, a state law will criminalise the woman’s conduct too, incarcerating or fining her for daring to seek or obtain an abortion.
And in any case, they wrote, women’s rights have been curtailed.
Whatever the exact scope of the coming laws, one result of today’s decision is certain: the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens.
The dissenters also took a direct shot at Kavanaugh’s neutrality argument.
When the court decimates a right women have held for 50 years, the court is not being “scrupulously neutral”. It is instead taking sides: against women who wish to exercise the right, and for states (like Mississippi) that want to bar them from doing so.
And unlike Alito, they specifically sought to address the real-world implications.
The disruption of overturning Roe and Casey will therefore be profound. Abortion is a common medical procedure and a familiar experience in women’s lives. About 18 per cent of pregnancies in this country end in abortion, and about one-quarter of American women will have an abortion before the age of 45 . . . [P]eople today rely on their ability to control and time pregnancies when making countless life decisions: where to live, whether and how to invest in education or careers, how to allocate financial resources, and how to approach intimate and family relationships.
They warned of the fragility of constitutional protections.
The American public, they thought, should never conclude that its constitutional protections hung by a thread — that a new majority, adhering to a new “doctrinal school”, could “by dint of numbers” alone expunge their rights.
Supreme Court justices often conclude their dissents by saying they “respectfully dissent” or, to hit a stronger note, that they simply “dissent”. On Friday, the court’s liberal bloc dissented “with sorrow”.
With sorrow — for this court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection — we dissent.
Original Source: ft.com
US Supreme Court Overturns Roe Vs Wade in Major Blow to Abortion Rights
The US Supreme Court has struck down Roe vs Wade, the legal decision that has enshrined the constitutional right to an abortion for nearly 50 years, in a dramatic ruling by the court’s conservative majority that will shake up American society, politics and jurisprudence for years to come.
In the decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the justices of the Supreme Court upheld a state law in Mississippi that bans abortion after 15 weeks. They also went further, saying that the Roe vs Wade ruling of 1973 was incorrectly decided. The court’s three liberal justices dissented.
The court’s ruling was one of its most intensely anticipated in years — even more so after a draft of the majority opinion heralding its final decision to overturn Roe vs Wade was published by Politico in April, triggering a highly unusual probe within the institution into the leak.
In denying a constitutional right to an abortion, the court has effectively given a green light for states to enact abortion laws that can be as restrictive as they wish. Several states run by Republican-led governors and legislatures have already passed laws that mean more restrictions on abortion will be automatically implemented if Roe is overturned.
The sweeping opinion in the Mississippi case was made possible by the appointment of three conservative Supreme Court justices during the presidency of Donald Trump, who secured their confirmation through the then Republican-led Senate. The court’s conservative majority is now so strong that it can afford to lose the support of Chief Justice John Roberts, who is considered a more moderate conservative, and still prevail in key rulings.
Earlier this year, the Democratic-led Senate confirmed Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal nominated by Joe Biden, to be a justice on America’s highest court. Since she is replacing Stephen Breyer, another liberal, her appointment will not affect the court’s balance of power.
The Supreme Court ruling on abortion was released with less than five months to go before November’s midterm elections, and may alter the political dynamic heading into the vote, though it is unclear whether it can overpower the impact of high inflation and economic perceptions as a factor for voters.
With polls showing that a majority of Americans opposed to overturning Roe vs Wade, Democrats are hoping that the ruling will trigger outrage, mobilise its base, and attract moderate swing voters who will see Republican positions on the issue as increasingly extreme.
But Republicans believe that disappointment with Biden’s handling of the economy, and high consumer prices, particularly for food and petrol, will still carry the day and give them a strong chance of recapturing control of the House of Representatives and possibly even the Senate.
Original Post: ft.com
Finance8 months ago
Logically Announces Acquisition of Full-Service IT Managed Services Provider Halski Systems
Medicine8 months ago
Axe-wielding Man Broke Into North York Home, Stole Jewelry and Had a Shower: Police
Technology7 months ago
Kongsberg Geospatial TerraLens Technology Enables Next Generation…
Technology8 months ago
NVT Phybridge and Avaya Help Customers Digitally Transform Their…
Current Events8 months ago
BBNaija’s Angel Splashes Millions on New Range Rover Few Weeks After Renting a House
Traveling7 months ago
Xinhua Asia-Pacific News Summary at 1600 GMT, Dec. 11
Medicine7 months ago
Omicron Exceeds Other Variants in Ability to Evade Protection From Previous Infection, Vaccines: Study
Finance7 months ago
Pet Parents® Returns to the 2021 Inc. 5000 Fastest-Growing…