# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 ways the Reserve Bank is going to bat for Australia like never before — The Conversation AU

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The most important change is a guarantee about the future, one the RBA can be held to.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Social disadvantage set to skyrocket in NSW as the coronavirus fallout takes its toll - SBS News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the economy and employment will bring a wave of disadvantage to NSW if left unchecked, a new study says.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
If you're on JobSeeker, prepare for a pay cut this week - ABC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Friday, the Government will cut back the coronavirus supplement for JobSeeker recipients and others on some government payments. The $550 coronavirus supplement, which effectively doubles JobSeeker to $1,100 a fortnight, will be slashed and other changes are on the way too. Here's what you need to know.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Employment experts say many different types of jobs are being lost forever during this pandemic as companies accelerate restructuring that was happening before the crisis began.

A survey shows financial services, consulting and administrative staff are now most worried about losing their jobs

Middle-level managers in particular appear to be facing redundancy

Some economists say the removal of a layer of management could boost productivity by encouraging more staff autonomy

When marketing manager Wendy Robertson's boss took her aside, she knew what he was about to say.

"I could see the viability of the business wasn't going to be sustainable," she told PM.

"For him it was pretty tough; he probably struggled more than me."

Ms Robertson's management position was made redundant.

She has been forced into contracting, something she never dreamed she would need to do.

"I wouldn't have resigned from a permanent role to go and be a contractor, because that just seems bonkers, but circumstance put me in this position," she said.

Middle-level managers face the chop

Ms Robertson joins a wave of middle-level managers losing their jobs, according to independent banking and household finances analyst Martin North.

He uses a telephone survey, which engages 1,000 people, to find out what is worrying households.

In his latest survey, he has been able to track which industries are most affected.

"Now we're seeing structural unemployment," he said

"So I'm looking at people in the financial services sector, consulting sector, other administration roles more generally in the private sector, all very concerned about their jobs.

"And it seems to be honing in on middle-level management roles in particular.

"It's essentially the collapsing of the layers within the large organisations that seems to be going on here."

Recruitment firm Drake International told PM it has just been hired by a major Australian telecommunications company to fill 12 contract roles that were previously permanent positions.

Drake chief executive Christopher Ouizeman described it as a "major shift" in the employment landscape.

"You know organisations can avail themselves of high-end technical specialists for defined periods of time for a fraction of the cost of putting someone on a permanent payroll," he said.

"The bottom line is companies are frightened but it doesn't stop them from wanting to progress, and contracting is an elegant solution to that problem."

Working from home, he said, is accelerating a process of cost cutting, downsizing and restructuring that began years ago to counter broader weakness in the economy.

"So the mindset is, if we start to structure our business differently, do we really need to undertake the legacy activities of the past, and a lot of organisations have come to the conclusion that no they don't," he said.

"So we're seeing a lot of companies restructuring."

Value of managers under spotlight

Alison Pennington, a senior economist with the Centre for Future Work, said working from home during the pandemic has opened top-level managers' eyes to the value of providing lower-level staff with more independence.

Alison Pennington says some businesses are discovering that middle managers can be counter-productive.(ABC News: John Gunn )

"We should question the relative value-add of someone whose job it is to oversee others," she argued.

"Australia's professional services industries have been internationally recognised as having some of the worst workplace cultures, in particular because of the very top-down types of command and control that white-collar workplaces have been functioning under, and it's actually proven to be bad for productivity.

"So it's possible this whole pandemic has forced a complete culture change in Australian professional firms because they realise that they can actually trust their employees to get work done and they don't need someone breathing down their neck."

Ms Robertson said many managers can no longer cling to a company for job security, but instead will have to learn to fend for themselves, as will many other workers.

Marketing manager Wendy Robertson was recently made redundant.(Supplied: Wendy Robertson )

"It's not going to be about roles anymore, it's going to be about skills, and mindsets," she said.

"What are the skills and mindset we need to deliver the outcomes for the organisation? How do we get them?

"They may not all exist in one person.

"We might bring in three part-time contractors to work on a particular project to bring all the skills and the mindset we need.

"And the people that were in roles that have now been permanently displaced will have to figure out where they might fit in that environment."

The Government said it was acutely aware that the economic fallout from COVID-19 would continue for some time, particularly in light of the outbreak of cases in Victoria.

"This is why the Government has moved quickly to protect both the health and jobs of all Australians and has put in place sustainable measures to help cushion the impact of the pandemic," Minister for Housing and Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar told the ABC in a statement.

"The latest ABS data shows that while the professional services sector has not been immune to job losses, comparatively, the percentage of jobs lost in this sector has been less than the broader economy."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Some jobs lost forever as coronavirus pandemic accelerates structural change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Employment experts say many different types of jobs are being lost forever during this pandemic as companies accelerate restructuring that was happening before the crisis began.

# data[].attributes.body
Job retention schemes during the COVID-19 lockdown and beyond - OECD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'They're owned by everyone': Taxpayers to fund $15 million COVID-footpaths - 7NEWS.com.au

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recently, more people have been out and about, walking and cycling on popular tracks as coronavirus restrictions put a limit on their activities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Australia faces biggest economic contraction since Great Depression, Reserve Bank warns - ABC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe has warned Australia is this year likely to experience its biggest contraction in national output since the Great Depression.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I felt a terrible sense of dread last week, when the Australian government suspended local content quotas as part of its $54m rescue package for television, radio and regional publishers.

The communications minister, Paul Fletcher, announced on Wednesday that Australian content quotas for drama, children's and documentary on free-to-air and subscription TV would be suspended for the rest of the year.

While this is hopefully temporary, the dread remains. Despite their wonderful efficiency in levelling the playing field and ensuring we maintain an on-screen cultural identity at an absolute minimal cost to the public purse, content quotas have never been popular in neoliberal thinking, and it is so hard to put the genie back into the bottle.
Local content quotas suspended in $54m package for Australia's coronavirus-hit media
Quotas were first designed as a traditional protection mechanism - so that we could hear Australian voices on Australian television. The originating logic was that the three commercial free-to-air networks would have the exclusive use of the broadcast spectrum, and in return for this licence to print money, they would meet the cultural obligation by making a certain amount of Australian content.

This regulation has shifted in form over time, allowing for changes in audience viewing patterns, changes in economic conditions, and even changes in the government's industry-building incentives. When pay television came along, in order to maintain the level playing field, pay TV suppliers were obliged to spend a proportion of their programming budgets on Australian production.

Quotas are not the only way the government has supported the screen industry. State and federal governments have set up tax offset schemes for local productions, but also injected funds directly into the sector. But quotas have historically been much more efficient and cheaper in maintaining a cultural identity.

Let me illustrate with a slightly oblique example. A few years ago, a small amount of government investment lured a golden run of productions to Victoria. In just eight years, more than $200m worth of screen content was produced - including Rush, Howzat! Kerry Packer's War, Tangle, Beaconsfield, Offspring, Gallipoli and Party Tricks - employing an average of well over 1,000 people per annum and, thanks to the amount of money recouped through payroll tax, at a combined average net cost of less than $100,000 per annum to the Victorian government.

Success in our business is extremely hard to predict ... but when success happens, there is a multiplier effect

Quotas meant that Australian productions had to be made, and therefore made somewhere. A very small amount of public money was able to stimulate a huge amount of economic activity. It's a lot less in terms of investment than the millions of dollars currently spent attracting big Hollywood movies to our shores, even if the photo ops are better.

In recent years though, both the free-to-air networks and Foxtel have been knocked sideways by the influx of streaming services - Netflix, Amazon Prime, Stan, Disney+, Apple+ and so on. All of these but Stan are foreign owned, taking a lot of money out of the country without any responsibility to give anything back.

Since the streaming services arrived, it's been more difficult to level the playing field. The government has been slow to act in creating similar local content obligations for streaming services such as Netflix and Stan to those that apply to the other networks. To add to that, the free-to-air and subscription networks have been agitating for their own obligations to be lessened.

This is understandable but short sighted.

Success in our business is extremely hard to predict. Failure is much more frequent. Risk is necessarily high and expensive. But what is rarely recognised is that when success happens, there is a multiplier effect.

Another illustration. I've had six successful TV series - shows running to at least three seasons. All but one of these shows was not "wanted" by its network - they were only ordered because the network had to make its quota and they were considered the least bad option.

But each of these successes had a multiplier effect on the industry. Police Rescue was the only series being made in Australia on film, which meant it could sell more widely internationally. Within a year or so, there were half a dozen series being shot on film. The Secret Life of Us was made when it was believed dramas had to be "broad" - it was aimed at viewers aged 16-39 - and it was a hit that helped transform the network's orientation and profitability.

Offspring took the two-hour rom-com format and extended it to run for seven seasons. Numerous shows in similar genres have followed. Love My Way and Tangle were unwanted by the network that developed them, were then embraced by Foxtel, and a slew of much more ambitious Australian drama has followed on that service.
Real long-term thinking on TV would mean Netflix and Stan are treated the same as free-to-air
Now, in this setting of economically besieged networks, this damned virus has smashed us from the opposite direction. Everyone in the industry understands the difficulties the networks are facing, but I can't help thinking that a more measured reduction in quota, together with the foreshadowing that the foreign streamers were soon going to be subject to quota, might have been a smarter plan.

Trying to maintain a positive outlook and a sustainable structure when voices are screaming gloom and doom is not so easy. At the moment, there is no change to the overall requirement for broadcasters to meet a minimum of 55% local content. But more government stimulus will be necessary to keep the industry and our cultural identity alive in the coming years when this crisis is over. I just hope that the more efficient and cheaper route of content quotas won't be forgotten.

* John Edwards is an Australian television producer
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Content quotas are the most efficient way to ensure the creation of great Australian TV shows | John Edwards

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I felt a terrible sense of dread last week, when the Australian government suspended local content quotas as part of its $54m rescue package for television, radio and regional publishers. The communications minister, Paul Fletcher, announced on Wednesday that Australian content quotas for drama, children's and documentary on free-to-air and subscription TV would be suspended for the rest of the year.

# data[].attributes.body
Why Jails Are So Important in the Fight Against Coronavirus - The New York Times

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With about 200,000 people flowing into and out of jails every week, there are great risks not only for the detained, but also for jail workers and surrounding communities.

By Anna Flagg and

Picture thousands of cruise ships jammed with guests but short on hand sanitizer, protective gear and medical care. Every week, a quarter of the passengers get off, replaced by new people with the potential to either infect or be infected with the coronavirus.

There is a place like that in your community: the county jail, captained by your local elected sheriff, who is charged with preventing Covid-19 outbreaks but most likely has limited supplies and often no say in who enters and leaves the jail.

Both in large jails located in virus hot spots like New York and Seattle and in smaller jails across the country, the churn of people moving in and out threatens to accelerate the spread of the disease, endangering the incarcerated, the staff and the larger community. Some states and jurisdictions have responded by releasing prisoners or cutting jail time, but many have not.

Analysis of a database of county- and jurisdiction-level jail populations built by the Vera Institute of Justice shows the short-term flow of people through local facilities, including some who were admitted more than once, for an average week in 2017 (the most recent year with available data). The Marshall Project and The New York Times found that in a given week, more than 200,000 people are booked into jails across the country; roughly the same number walk out every week.

"It is hugely important that people understand the level of turnover in jails," said Brandon Garrett, a professor at Duke Law School. "People may have quite short stays, and the turnover means constant cycling in and out of the community."

Although "prison" and "jail" are often used interchangeably, they are not the same. Prisons hold people convicted of crimes with sentences measured in years and have more stable populations.

Jails are transient. Most there have been charged with crimes but not convicted. Many are waiting to pay bail to be released until trial or can't afford bail. The rest have misdemeanor convictions with sentences counted in months instead of years.

Preventing the spread of the virus in jails is challenging. Social distancing is crucial, but it's virtually impossible in dormitories with rows of beds in a common room. The same is true of two people in a single cell, or group showers or bathrooms that serve dozens. All these dangers escalate when jails are overcrowded, filthy or understaffed.

Physical contact between staff and the incarcerated is often unavoidable: Officers fingerprint, handcuff and supervise prisoners, as well as escort them to court and drive them to medical appointments. Many other people also flow in and out of jails, like family members who visit; volunteers who counsel or teach or preach; contractors who stock vending machines; and lawyers who meet their clients. Many jails have cut much of that traffic in response to coronavirus by limiting visits, services and vendors, and by moving to online and phone communication.

Early data shows there are already outbreaks inside jail walls. On Monday, New York's Legal Aid Society reported that 36 out of 1,000 inmates tested positive in New York City jails, versus 4 out of 1,000 people in the city at large. Without knowing how many tests have been run, it's unclear how New York's jails, which are largely on Rikers Island, compare with other areas. If testing rates were similar, the rate of infections at Rikers would be nine times higher than that in New York City over all.

Image

The Rikers Island jail complex in New York City. Coronavirus infection rates in the city's jails appear to be much higher than in the city as a whole. Credit... Bebeto Matthews/Associated Press

"Density is bad - we know that," said Barun Mathema, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Columbia University who was part of a team that studied the spread of tuberculosis in a prison in Brazil. The team found that people entered the prison with low rates of infection. Within six months, their rates had shot up 30 times, and remained elevated for years after release. The prison drove the disease not only inside its walls, but also in the neighboring community, according to models of the general population.

Dr. Mathema sees the parallel with coronavirus. People inside jails are more likely to be immune-compromised; they may have diabetes, hypertension, mental illness, substance use problems or other chronic health issues.

Crowded living conditions only increase the risk of infection. "We have to figure out ways to de-densify," he said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Correctional Association and other groups offer guidance for corrections departments on containing the virus: start frequent temperature screenings; take oral medical histories; limit visitors and vendors; increase cleaning; restrict movement; create spaces for isolating; coordinate with health providers; and plan for possible staff shortages.

Laurie Reid, a retired U.S. Public Health Service officer and correctional care nurse, was a liaison between the C.D.C. and the U.S. Marshals Service for 23 years. Ms. Reid said the measures being recommended may be enough to curb the spread of the disease. But she worries that smaller jails may lack the needed masks, gloves, medical equipment, staff and - above all - room to separate people from one another.

"Really, it's going to come down to space," she said. "I guarantee you smaller jails are just praying that nothing happens."

Roberto Potter, a professor of criminal justice at the University of Central Florida who worked with the C.D.C.'s corrections team, sees the spread into jails as inevitable. "It will only take that one asymptomatic case to come in and potentially spread the disease," he said.

Much attention has been focused on the nation's biggest jails: About 150 of them each hold more than 1,000 people. Los Angeles County, the most populous U.S. county, with the nation's largest jail population, has more than 3,000 jail bookings on the average week. The bookings in most jails are much lower, averaging a little over 70 a week, and half book about 30 people a week or fewer.

One is Lamar County in Southern Mississippi, where Sheriff Danny Rigel said he was doing his best to follow C.D.C. guidelines.

He weathered Hurricane Katrina and other disasters, one reason his jail is stocked with N95 masks, nitrile gloves, disposable gowns, surgical masks and disinfectant.

His staff uses a forehead scanner to take the temperature of every arriving officer and person arrested. He has a fogging machine to disinfect police cars, and deputies wear masks when fingerprinting or driving detainees. A nurse is on site 24 hours a day.

His jail is single-celled, with no dorms and no "drunk tank" that holds groups. Its 164 beds are less than two-thirds full, though he fears they'll fill up because the state has stopped picking up people sentenced to prison, leaving them in jails indefinitely.

"If we have an outbreak in the jail, we're going to be in a bind, like everyone else," he said. "This is like a big hurricane that we hope won't get here."

The way to "de-densify" a jail sounds simple: reduce bookings and accelerate releases, something over which sheriffs have limited control. Judges determine who exits jail by setting bond amounts and other conditions of pretrial release.

Police officers decide whether to arrest and book a person into jail, or issue a citation with a court date. Sheriff Rigel tells his deputies to write citations - and not to book people into jail - for misdemeanors except for drunken driving and domestic abuse charges.

Law enforcement officials elsewhere, including New York, Houston and Southern California, have been taking a similar approach. So far this year, an average of 1,450 people a week have been booked into the jails in San Bernardino County, Calif., roughly the same as in 2017. That number fell to 877 for the week ending March 25.

Jodi Miller, the public information officer for San Bernardino County, said issuing citations for misdemeanors undoubtedly made a difference.

"It is difficult to know precisely why," she said. "It may also be people are staying home and not out committing crimes."

In Los Angeles County, Sheriff Alex Villanueva announced the jail would book only those whose bond amounts were $50,000 or more, up from $25,000. Sheriff Villanueva has already released 1,700 people with low bonds or who had less than 30 days left on their sentences. The sheriff also promised to identify an additional 2,800 older people or those held on low bail awaiting trial so that the district attorney and public defender could evaluate them for potential release.

Houston is home to another of the biggest jail populations, and there Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez has refused to book people arrested on certain low-level offenses and has pushed for the "compassionate release" of inmates over age 50 facing nonviolent charges. In addition, Houston judges ordered the release of people jailed on the lowest nonviolent felony charges, known in Texas as state jail felonies.

Few such measures have been taken 250 miles to the northwest in Tarrant County, home to Fort Worth, where at least 640 people were booked into the jail last week, down 9 percent from the 2017 average. Of the two-thirds booked on a single charge, over half were charged with misdemeanors such as petty theft, trespass and marijuana possession or with nonviolent state jail felonies.

Many are released within a few hours or days, said Phillip Hall, a defense lawyer, "but they are still bringing germs into the jail."

On a recent talk radio show, Tarrant County Sheriff Bill Waybourn said he wouldn't follow the lead of cities where officials have declined to prosecute low-level crimes, promising that law enforcement would take action "when bad guys cross their path."

"It is business as usual," he said. "We are not going to let things slide by."

Medical experts say much more needs to be done to avert jailhouse equivalents of the plague. Wan Yang, an epidemiologist at Columbia, sees the grim numbers at Rikers Island as a warning to other jails.

"With very quick turnover, it's going to increase the risk," she said. "Prevention is the key."

Map source: Vera Institute of Justice, county jail incarceration trends. Data shows estimated weekly admissions, releases and average daily populations for the average week in 2017, the year with the most recent available data, and may not reflect currently detained populations. Some counties have more than one jail facility; totals shown are for all jails countywide.

This article was published in partnership with The Marshall Project, a nonprofit news organization covering the U.S. criminal justice system. Sign up for its newsletter, or follow The Marshall Project on Facebook or Twitter. Anna Flagg is a senior data reporter for The Marshall Project, and Joseph Neff is an investigative reporter there.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Jails Are So Important in the Fight Against Coronavirus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With about 200,000 people flowing into and out of jails every week, there are great risks not only for the detained, but also for jail workers and surrounding communities. By Anna Flagg and Picture thousands of cruise ships jammed with guests but short on hand sanitizer, protective gear and medical care.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can your boss make you take a pay cut, do a different role or work more hours? - ABC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Millions of Australians have had their work disrupted by the coronavirus crisis - some may be working from home, many have been stood down and others asked to take pay cuts. Applications for the JobKeeper scheme officially opened on Monday, with employers expected to pass on the $1,500 fortnightly supplement to 6.7 million Australian workers.

# data[].attributes.body
Why Jails Are So Important in the Fight Against Coronavirus - The New York Times

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With about 200,000 people flowing into and out of jails every week, there are great risks not only for the detained, but also for jail workers and surrounding communities.

By Anna Flagg and

Picture thousands of cruise ships jammed with guests but short on hand sanitizer, protective gear and medical care. Every week, a quarter of the passengers get off, replaced by new people with the potential to either infect or be infected with the coronavirus.

There is a place like that in your community: the county jail, captained by your local elected sheriff, who is charged with preventing Covid-19 outbreaks but most likely has limited supplies and often no say in who enters and leaves the jail.

Both in large jails located in virus hot spots like New York and Seattle and in smaller jails across the country, the churn of people moving in and out threatens to accelerate the spread of the disease, endangering the incarcerated, the staff and the larger community. Some states and jurisdictions have responded by releasing prisoners or cutting jail time, but many have not.

Analysis of a database of county- and jurisdiction-level jail populations built by the Vera Institute of Justice shows the short-term flow of people through local facilities, including some who were admitted more than once, for an average week in 2017 (the most recent year with available data). The Marshall Project and The New York Times found that in a given week, more than 200,000 people are booked into jails across the country; roughly the same number walk out every week.

"It is hugely important that people understand the level of turnover in jails," said Brandon Garrett, a professor at Duke Law School. "People may have quite short stays, and the turnover means constant cycling in and out of the community."

Although "prison" and "jail" are often used interchangeably, they are not the same. Prisons hold people convicted of crimes with sentences measured in years and have more stable populations.

Jails are transient. Most there have been charged with crimes but not convicted. Many are waiting to pay bail to be released until trial or can't afford bail. The rest have misdemeanor convictions with sentences counted in months instead of years.

Preventing the spread of the virus in jails is challenging. Social distancing is crucial, but it's virtually impossible in dormitories with rows of beds in a common room. The same is true of two people in a single cell, or group showers or bathrooms that serve dozens. All these dangers escalate when jails are overcrowded, filthy or understaffed.

Physical contact between staff and the incarcerated is often unavoidable: Officers fingerprint, handcuff and supervise prisoners, as well as escort them to court and drive them to medical appointments. Many other people also flow in and out of jails, like family members who visit; volunteers who counsel or teach or preach; contractors who stock vending machines; and lawyers who meet their clients. Many jails have cut much of that traffic in response to coronavirus by limiting visits, services and vendors, and by moving to online and phone communication.

Early data shows there are already outbreaks inside jail walls. On Monday, New York's Legal Aid Society reported that 36 out of 1,000 inmates tested positive in New York City jails, versus 4 out of 1,000 people in the city at large. Without knowing how many tests have been run, it's unclear how New York's jails, which are largely on Rikers Island, compare with other areas. If testing rates were similar, the rate of infections at Rikers would be nine times higher than that in New York City over all.

Image

The Rikers Island jail complex in New York City. Coronavirus infection rates in the city's jails appear to be much higher than in the city as a whole. Credit... Bebeto Matthews/Associated Press

"Density is bad - we know that," said Barun Mathema, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Columbia University who was part of a team that studied the spread of tuberculosis in a prison in Brazil. The team found that people entered the prison with low rates of infection. Within six months, their rates had shot up 30 times, and remained elevated for years after release. The prison drove the disease not only inside its walls, but also in the neighboring community, according to models of the general population.

Dr. Mathema sees the parallel with coronavirus. People inside jails are more likely to be immune-compromised; they may have diabetes, hypertension, mental illness, substance use problems or other chronic health issues.

Crowded living conditions only increase the risk of infection. "We have to figure out ways to de-densify," he said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Correctional Association and other groups offer guidance for corrections departments on containing the virus: start frequent temperature screenings; take oral medical histories; limit visitors and vendors; increase cleaning; restrict movement; create spaces for isolating; coordinate with health providers; and plan for possible staff shortages.

Laurie Reid, a retired U.S. Public Health Service officer and correctional care nurse, was a liaison between the C.D.C. and the U.S. Marshals Service for 23 years. Ms. Reid said the measures being recommended may be enough to curb the spread of the disease. But she worries that smaller jails may lack the needed masks, gloves, medical equipment, staff and - above all - room to separate people from one another.

"Really, it's going to come down to space," she said. "I guarantee you smaller jails are just praying that nothing happens."

Roberto Potter, a professor of criminal justice at the University of Central Florida who worked with the C.D.C.'s corrections team, sees the spread into jails as inevitable. "It will only take that one asymptomatic case to come in and potentially spread the disease," he said.

Much attention has been focused on the nation's biggest jails: About 150 of them each hold more than 1,000 people. Los Angeles County, the most populous U.S. county, with the nation's largest jail population, has more than 3,000 jail bookings on the average week. The bookings in most jails are much lower, averaging a little over 70 a week, and half book about 30 people a week or fewer.

One is Lamar County in Southern Mississippi, where Sheriff Danny Rigel said he was doing his best to follow C.D.C. guidelines.

He weathered Hurricane Katrina and other disasters, one reason his jail is stocked with N95 masks, nitrile gloves, disposable gowns, surgical masks and disinfectant.

His staff uses a forehead scanner to take the temperature of every arriving officer and person arrested. He has a fogging machine to disinfect police cars, and deputies wear masks when fingerprinting or driving detainees. A nurse is on site 24 hours a day.

His jail is single-celled, with no dorms and no "drunk tank" that holds groups. Its 164 beds are less than two-thirds full, though he fears they'll fill up because the state has stopped picking up people sentenced to prison, leaving them in jails indefinitely.

"If we have an outbreak in the jail, we're going to be in a bind, like everyone else," he said. "This is like a big hurricane that we hope won't get here."

The way to "de-densify" a jail sounds simple: reduce bookings and accelerate releases, something over which sheriffs have limited control. Judges determine who exits jail by setting bond amounts and other conditions of pretrial release.

Police officers decide whether to arrest and book a person into jail, or issue a citation with a court date. Sheriff Rigel tells his deputies to write citations - and not to book people into jail - for misdemeanors except for drunken driving and domestic abuse charges.

Law enforcement officials elsewhere, including New York, Houston and Southern California, have been taking a similar approach. So far this year, an average of 1,450 people a week have been booked into the jails in San Bernardino County, Calif., roughly the same as in 2017. That number fell to 877 for the week ending March 25.

Jodi Miller, the public information officer for San Bernardino County, said issuing citations for misdemeanors undoubtedly made a difference.

"It is difficult to know precisely why," she said. "It may also be people are staying home and not out committing crimes."

In Los Angeles County, Sheriff Alex Villanueva announced the jail would book only those whose bond amounts were $50,000 or more, up from $25,000. Sheriff Villanueva has already released 1,700 people with low bonds or who had less than 30 days left on their sentences. The sheriff also promised to identify an additional 2,800 older people or those held on low bail awaiting trial so that the district attorney and public defender could evaluate them for potential release.

Houston is home to another of the biggest jail populations, and there Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez has refused to book people arrested on certain low-level offenses and has pushed for the "compassionate release" of inmates over age 50 facing nonviolent charges. In addition, Houston judges ordered the release of people jailed on the lowest nonviolent felony charges, known in Texas as state jail felonies.

Few such measures have been taken 250 miles to the northwest in Tarrant County, home to Fort Worth, where at least 640 people were booked into the jail last week, down 9 percent from the 2017 average. Of the two-thirds booked on a single charge, over half were charged with misdemeanors such as petty theft, trespass and marijuana possession or with nonviolent state jail felonies.

Many are released within a few hours or days, said Phillip Hall, a defense lawyer, "but they are still bringing germs into the jail."

On a recent talk radio show, Tarrant County Sheriff Bill Waybourn said he wouldn't follow the lead of cities where officials have declined to prosecute low-level crimes, promising that law enforcement would take action "when bad guys cross their path."

"It is business as usual," he said. "We are not going to let things slide by."

Medical experts say much more needs to be done to avert jailhouse equivalents of the plague. Wan Yang, an epidemiologist at Columbia, sees the grim numbers at Rikers Island as a warning to other jails.

"With very quick turnover, it's going to increase the risk," she said. "Prevention is the key."

Map source: Vera Institute of Justice, county jail incarceration trends. Data shows estimated weekly admissions, releases and average daily populations for the average week in 2017, the year with the most recent available data, and may not reflect currently detained populations. Some counties have more than one jail facility; totals shown are for all jails countywide.

This article was published in partnership with The Marshall Project, a nonprofit news organization covering the U.S. criminal justice system. Sign up for its newsletter, or follow The Marshall Project on Facebook or Twitter. Anna Flagg is a senior data reporter for The Marshall Project, and Joseph Neff is an investigative reporter there.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Jails Are So Important in the Fight Against Coronavirus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With about 200,000 people flowing into and out of jails every week, there are great risks not only for the detained, but also for jail workers and surrounding communities. By Anna Flagg and Picture thousands of cruise ships jammed with guests but short on hand sanitizer, protective gear and medical care.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Posted April 01, 2020 16:53:09

Australia's proposal for the global economy to go into hibernation amid the coronavirus pandemic has been endorsed by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), but it has warned countries will not "re-emerge very, very quickly" as Prime Minister Scott Morrison has suggested.

OECD secretary-general Angel Gurría was on the late night call with G20 finance ministers and central bank governors, which Treasurer Josh Frydenberg also dialled into.

The Treasurer told the powerful group, which includes the United States and United Kingdom, the global economy should be put into a controlled hibernation while quarantine measures were in place to fight coronavirus.

Mr Gurria told The Business confinement was the best way to contain the spread of the virus.

"We have to fight contagion, we have to stop the spread for human reasons, for ethical reasons, for moral reasons but also for very pragmatic reasons, in that the longer it lasts, the deeper we will be in the hole, the more GDP we will lose and the longer it will take to get out of the hole," he said.

"It is in everybody's best economic and financial interest that the first part, the virus issue, lasts as little as possible."

"So I would agree with Josh [Frydenberg] that confinement or hibernation - call it what you want - ... is the only way is to address the spread."

Economic hibernation is a key plank in Mr Morrison's plan to contain the damage from coronavirus.

He says it will "enable businesses to re-emerge very, very quickly" and "switch on again and get moving again" once the virus is contained.

However, Mr Gurria suggested recovery would take time.

"Once the confinement efforts have stopped, we are then going to have to pick up the pieces and they are going to be all over the place," he said.

"We are going to have a long period [of recovery] and it is going to be longer than just the time which we take to stop the spread of the virus itself."

"The economic and social consequences will unfortunately be felt for some time to come."

Global leaders not coordinating enough, Gurria says

Despite global leaders holding regular teleconferences since the outbreak, Mr Gurria was very critical of the lack of coordination between nations and said they were not doing enough to fight the spread of the virus.

"[It has been] less than they should, less than they could, and less than what is needed," he said.

"So they are talking, they are understanding what the others are doing ... but greater coordination has still a lot to grow and thus to benefit."

He said their lack of coordination meant the impact on the global economy would be much worse than previously hoped.

"For every month of [non-containment of the virus] there will be a 2 per cent reduction in GDP growth," he said.

"We are now talking about recessionary scenario for most countries in the world."

In early March the OECD forecast global growth would halve to just over 1 per cent for this year.

Mr Gurria said he now expected it to fall 5 per cent or more.

But he praised the Australian Government's stimulus response to the economic fallout.

"It means you're moving quite actively and with great agility in responding to the challenges, as have a number of countries," he said.

"Now the biggest question is coordination among countries. Any country that wants to go it alone does so at its own peril."

OECD worried about widespread social unrest

A major concern for the OECD is the potential for widespread social unrest.

Recent work by the OECD, whose members account for about a fifth of the global population, found one third of OECD households would fall into poverty if they had to forgo three months of their income.

It also suggested half of middle-class people in OECD countries would fall below the middle-class level if they lost only three months of income.

Mr Gurria said the OECD was "extremely worried" this would happen, given the shutdowns across the globe.

"You are going to have millions of people who are going to be in that situation, and therefore the impact on inequality will be very severe," he said.

There would be serious economic, financial and political consequences.

"Already you are looking at this crisis on top of what was very clear rising discontent around the world," he said.

"This makes the most vulnerable hit the hardest and you are going to see a lot of very serious tensions, social tensions, political tensions."

He suggested governments should "drop the rule book" on government spending and managing debt.

"The ultimate duty of governments is to protect the people, to see after the wellbeing of the people, and in this case to protect them against this very harsh and dramatic impact that they are suffering," he said.

Eventually governments would have to account for the costs, but for the time being they needed to keep pouring money into economies so people could stay home, he said.

Topics: business-economics-and-finance, economic-trends, globalisation---economy, disease-control, infectious-diseases-other, federal-government, australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
OECD endorses economic hibernation plan but warns recovery after coronavirus will be slow

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Posted April 01, 2020 16:53:09 Australia's proposal for the global economy to go into hibernation amid the coronavirus pandemic has been endorsed by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), but it has warned countries will not "re-emerge very, very quickly" as Prime Minister Scott Morrison has suggested.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It could take three years for the US economy to recover from COVID-19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How will public health measures and policy interventions affect COVID-19's economic impact? A resurgence in the virus could see a longer recovery period.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Australian Government Department of Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our aims

The Australian Government's health response to the COVID-19 outbreak aims to:

minimise the number of people becoming infected or sick with COVID-19

minimise how sick people become and the mortality rate

manage the demand on our health systems

help you to manage your own risk and the risk to your family and community

support work towards a vaccine

make a future vaccine available to Australians for free.

What we are doing now

The Australian Government has developed and funded a comprehensive response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Government is:

State and territory health authorities are:

testing people suspected of having the virus

monitoring close contacts of confirmed cases every day

imposing travel restrictions between states

opening fever clinics.

To reduce the risk of COVID-19 spreading through international travel, the Government is:

applying travel restrictions

screening travellers who arrive in Australia and ensuring they quarantine on arrival

continuing with border surveillance.

Our response plans

The Government bases its response on several key plans:

Who manages the response

State and territory governments are mainly responsible for health matters.

When a major health issue like COVID-19 faces our country, they:

work together with the Australian Government

share information so they can provide the best possible care

ensure the response is consistent and integrated across the country.

The Australian Health Protection Principal Committee (AHPPC) makes key decisions and coordinates this response.

The AHPPC is made up of:

the Chief Health Officers from each state and territory

the Chief Medical Officer

representatives from key departments.

It meets daily to assess the risk to Australia and recommend public health actions. The AHPPC endorsed the Government's emergency response plan.

The Australian Government has put together a team of widely respected clinicians, led by the Chief Medical Officer, to assist with the COVID-19 response.

What you can do

You can help us slow the spread of COVID-19 by:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Government response to the COVID-19 outbreak

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Australian Government's health response to the COVID-19 outbreak aims to: minimise the number of people becoming infected or sick with COVID-19 minimise how sick people become and the mortality rate manage the demand on our health systems help you to manage your own risk and the risk to your family and community support work towards a vaccine make a future vaccine available to Australians for free.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Editor's note: The Economist is making some of its most important coverage of the covid-19 pandemic freely available to readers of The Economist Today, our daily newsletter. To receive it, register here. For more coverage, see our coronavirus hub

"T HE GOVERNMENT intervention is not a government takeover," the American president argued. "Its purpose is not to weaken the free market. It is to preserve the free market." The IMF pointed to the "unprecedented policy actions undertaken by central banks and governments worldwide". The economic response to the financial meltdown of 2007-09 was big enough. But in answer to the covid-19 pandemic policymakers are launching even bigger, more radical interventions. Putting the economy on a wartime footing is supposed to be temporary. A look at 500 years of governmental power, however, suggests another outcome: the state is likely to play a very different role in the economy-not just during the crisis, but long after.

The policy response has been swift and decisive. Globally central banks have cut interest rates by more than 0.5 percentage points since January and have launched huge new quantitative-easing schemes (creating money to buy bonds). Politicians are throwing open the fiscal spigots to support the economy. As The Economist went to press, America's Congress was set to pass a bill that boosts spending by twice as much as President Barack Obama's package in 2009 (see article). On top of that, Britain, France and other countries have made credit guarantees worth as much as 15% of GDP, seeking to prevent a cascade of defaults. On the most conservative measure, the global stimulus from government spending this year will exceed 2% of global GDP, a much bigger push than was seen in 2007-09 (see chart 1). Even Germany, whose fiscal rectitude is the punchline of economists' jokes, is spending more (see article).

The upshot is that the state is swelling. Last year overall government spending accounted for 38% of GDP across the rich world. The stimulus effort, combined with a fall in nominal GDP in the next few months, will push that ratio well above 40%, perhaps to its highest-ever level.

To focus just on the numbers misses something crucial, though. There are important qualitative changes under way in how policymakers manage the economy-the responsibilities they have seized for themselves, what is seen as a legitimate action and what is not, and the criteria used to judge policy success or failure. On these measures, the world is in the early stages of a revolution in economic policymaking.

Central banks have in effect pledged to print as much money as necessary to keep down government-borrowing costs. The European Central Bank is promising more or less to buy everything that governments might issue; this should reduce the gap in borrowing costs between weaker and stronger euro-zone members, which widened in the early days of the pandemic. On March 23rd America's Federal Reserve promised to buy unlimited quantities of Treasury bonds and agency mortgage-backed securities, if necessary. The rise in borrowing caused by America's stimulus may be matched, at least initially, by bond purchases by the Fed, which smells a lot like money-printing to finance deficits. The central bank also announced new programmes to support the flow of credit to companies and consumers. The Fed is now the direct lender of last resort to the real economy, not just the financial system.

Politicians, too, are ripping up the rulebook. In a standard recession firms are allowed to go bust and people to become unemployed. Even in normal economic times, roughly 8% of businesses in OECD countries go under each year, while 10% or so of the workforce lose a job. Now governments hope to stop this from happening entirely. President Emmanuel Macron does not speak only for France when he vows that no firm will "face the risk of bankruptcy" as a result of the pandemic. Boris Johnson, Britain's prime minister, contrasts his government's response with the one during the last financial crisis: "everybody said we bailed out the banks and we didn't look after the people who really suffered". Larry Kudlow, the director of America's National Economic Council, calls America's fiscal stimulus "the single largest Main Street assistance programme in the history of the United States", comparing it favourably with Wall Street bail-outs a decade ago.

To that end, governments across the rich world are channelling vast sums to firms, providing them with grants and cheap loans in an attempt to preserve jobs and prevent them from going bust. In some cases the government is paying the wages of people who cannot work safely: the EU in particular has embraced this policy, while the British state will pay up to 80% of the wages of furloughed workers. The American package includes loans to small businesses that will be forgiven if workers are not laid off. Households across the rich world are being given temporary relief on mortgages, other debts, rent and utility bills. In America people will also be sent cheques worth up to $1,200.

The vast majority of economists support these measures. Nominally they are temporary, designed to hold the economy in an induced coma until the pandemic passes, at which point the world is supposed to revert to the status quo ante. But history suggests that a return to pre-covid days is unlikely. Two lessons stand out. The first is that governmental control over the economy takes a large step up during periods of crisis-and in particular war. The second is that the forces encouraging governments to retain and expand economic control are stronger than the forces encouraging them to relinquish it, meaning that a "temporary" expansion of state power tends to become permanent.

The sinews of power

In recent centuries government spending across the capitalist world has leapt. In the 1600s the outlays of the entire English state accounted for about 5% of GDP, with practically no spending on public health or education, nor much regulation of economic life, save for crude contract enforcement (see chart 2). That began to change in the 18th century, and from the end of the 19th century Britain and other capitalist countries saw increased state intervention, with more government resources being devoted to public goods such as welfare and education and commensurate increases in taxes (see chart 3).

Governments have had some lean periods. In Victorian Britain state spending fell as a share of GDP -though that was largely because economic growth was so rapid, and the measure in chart 2 excludes spending by local governments, which became exceptionally powerful over the period. In the 1980s Ronald Reagan succeeded in stabilising America's day-to-day federal spending. His reforms, as well as those of Margaret Thatcher in Britain, reduced the role of government in fixing prices; privatisations encouraged profit-making firms to provide formerly state-run services such as power and transport. Yet even during Reagan's presidency the number of pages of federal regulations rose by 14%.

A back-of-the-envelope calculation finds that, of the more than 50 countries for which there are long-run fiscal data, two-thirds saw their government-spending-to- GDP ratio increase between 1988 and 2018. America's ratio of day-to-day public spending to GDP is eight percentage points higher than it was in 1962, when Milton Friedman wrote "Capitalism and Freedom", a book which warned of the dangers of socialism.

Historians argue over why the public sector has a tendency to expand. In the 19th century Adolph Wagner, a German economist, suggested that as places got richer, demands on government grew. An increasingly complex production process needed more regulation and contractual enforcement. Wealthier people would also demand more public welfare provision, the theory goes, perhaps because they worried less about their own material situation and could thus turn their attention to others.

Wagner's theories also pointed to what economists call "hysteresis" in fiscal policy. Governments may intend to boost spending only for a short while. But then expectations change, making such expansionism hard to undo. It is now common sense that the state should provide education to children at no cost to parents, or support people who are out of work. American governments have in recent decades cut the share of public spending devoted to welfare. However, it remains politically impossible to bring it down to anywhere near its level in the mid-1960s, before President Lyndon Johnson's "war on poverty" was launched. The upshot is that while it is easy to ratchet state spending up, it is much harder to push it down.

Perhaps the most important lesson of 500 years of history, however, is that nothing has helped boost state power in Europe and America more than crises. Historians broadly agree that the growing fiscal capacity of capitalist countries from the 1700s onwards was linked to the need to fight increasingly sprawling and expensive wars, especially those using navies and where the field of battle was far from home. (The Seven Years War of 1756-63 is widely considered to be the first global war because it involved a large number of countries, often fighting in foreign theatres.)

To win, countries required increasingly complex, well-resourced administrations which could supply fighters with weapons that worked and food that had not rotted. They also needed the money to pay for it, whether by levying more taxes or by becoming a reliable borrower in markets-which called for yet more bureaucracy. Growing state capacity, in turn, allowed for the emergence of the capitalism we know today, with properly regulated markets, efficient telecoms and transport, and healthy and educated citizens.

The winners of those wars also seized control of resources, from sugar and spices to linens, which proved integral to industrialisation. So it is no surprise that historians contend that wars and other crises have been an engine of economic development. It is no coincidence that the Netherlands, the first country to embrace capitalism, in the 17th century, was also at the time the world's pre-eminent naval power, fighting and winning numerous wars over the period; or that Britain, which came to dominate the seas in the 18th century, then became the world's largest economy. According to Larry Neal of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the Industrial Revolution "occurred precisely during and because of the Napoleonic wars" of the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

The responses to crises since then have further consolidated the power of the state. France's top rate of income tax was zero in 1914; a year after the end of the first world war it was 50%. Canada introduced income tax in 1917 as a "temporary" measure to finance the war. During the second world war income tax in America turned from a "class tax" to a "mass tax", with the number of payers rising from 7m in 1940 to 42m in 1945 (today more than twice as many Americans are caught in the net). The second world war also led to calls for the introduction of cradle-to-grave welfare systems. So did the dynamics of the cold war: governments across the capitalist world wanted to forestall a communist rebellion. The state-led model pursued in Europe from the 1950s to the 1970s, in which bureaucrats controlled services from power networks to transport systems, would have been unimaginable without wartime experience, where the state managed practically everything and ordinary people made tremendous sacrifices, whether on the battlefield or at home.

The new ideology

What will be the lasting effects of the covid-19 pandemic? Start with the size of the state. Over the next year government debt will rise sharply, as spending jumps and tax revenues collapse. When the economy recovers, attention will turn to paying it down. "Capital and Ideology", a new book by Thomas Piketty, a French economist, shows that after the first and second world wars many governments in the West turned to heavier taxation of the incomes and wealth of the richest to achieve that goal. Another option is "financial repression", where governments force citizens to lend to them at below-market rates (see article).

Central banks' innovations will also have lasting consequences. Few economists believe that the explicit co-operation between the fiscal and monetary authorities risks creating runaway inflation, as it has done in Venezuela and Zimbabwe, any time soon. (If anything, the bigger worry right now is deflation, not least because of a collapse in oil prices.) However, just as the use of quantitative easing in 2008-09 opened the door to more of the same down the road, it will become harder to make the argument that the "magic money tree" does not exist. Politicians in the future may lean on central banks to peg interest rates at zero to support government borrowing, even during times of economic growth and low unemployment. If central banks promised to fund the government during the coronavirus pandemic, they might ask, then why shouldn't they also fund it to launch an expensive war against a foreign enemy or to invest in a Green New Deal?

The final impact of the current interventions relates to policymakers' tolerance for risk. No one cheers when a firm goes bust, but often the process helps shift resources from less efficient to more efficient uses, thus raising productivity and average living standards over time. The novel notion that the government needs to preserve firms, jobs and workers' incomes at practically any cost may endure, especially if the intervention proves successful in narrow terms. The policy will formally end once the pandemic has passed, but political pressure for similar support schemes-from the nationalisation of tottering firms to the provision of a universal basic income-may well be higher the next time a sharp downturn comes along. If politicians are able to preserve jobs and incomes during this crisis, many people will see little reason why they should not try again in the next one.

Calls for a more activist fiscal-monetary government will come against a backdrop of structurally higher demand for state spending. The public sector tends to provide labour-intensive services in which productivity improvements are difficult, such as health care and education. It must match the salaries of workers in other sectors in order to retain its own, even as they become less productive relative to the overall economy-a phenomenon which raises the cost of provision. Long before the coronavirus pandemic, fiscal wonks argued that government spending would soar during the 2020s, even in the absence of a crisis. That was not only or even primarily because an ageing population would raise demand for health care, but because health systems would be able to treat a wider range of illnesses more effectively, which would push up costs.

The likely economic effects of the pandemic reach far beyond the role of the state. Countries could become even less welcoming to immigrants-the better, they may believe, to reduce the likelihood of infection from foreign arrivals. On the same logic, resistance to the development of dense urban centres could mount, thereby limiting construction of new housing and raising costs. More countries may seek to become self-sufficient in the production of "strategic" commodities such as medicines, medical equipment and even toilet roll, contributing to a further rollback of globalisation. But the redefined role of the state could prove to be the most significant shift. The rules of the game have been moving in one direction for centuries. Another radical change is looming.■

Dig deeper:
For our latest coverage of the covid-19 pandemic, register for The Economist Today, our daily newsletter, or visit our coronavirus hub

This article appeared in the Briefing section of the print edition under the headline "Building up the pillars of state"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rich countries try radical economic policies to counter covid-19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Editor's note: The Economist is making some of its most important coverage of the covid-19 pandemic freely available to readers of The Economist Today, our daily newsletter. To receive it, register here. For more coverage, see our coronavirus hub "T HE GOVERNMENT intervention is not a government takeover," the American president argued.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Question: who will benefit from the Reserve Bank's massive loan and money-printing program? Answer: banks, bond traders and corporate customers. Answer: because the Government has delivered control of its money-printing program to the Reserve Bank and the banks. Instead of simply printing money and handing it to those who need it - indeed to those who will spend it - it is also giving the banks cash for loans (assets) which they are keen to offload. Question: if you were a banker would you lend money to a high risk small business or would you lend it to Qantas, Exxon or Energy Australia? Answer: the latter. You are more likely to get your money back from an airline which is protected by Government, an oil and gas multinational which extracts $10 billion a year from Australian seabeds and pays no tax or an oligopoly which provides essential services and also pays almost no tax. Privatisation Fetish and QE: will government surrender the economic rescue to the banks?
A whole generation of young people, and many not so young, are struggling to pay the rent and survive the coronavirus. But what does the Government do?

It gives control of its money-printing program (QE) to the banks and hopes the money trickles down.

It announces a $90 billion loan package aimed at small business but with a large "IF". It can also be accessed by big business.

It ramps up its asset-buying program which allows banks to raise money from their mortgages.

This Government really does have trouble actually governing. Lest it be accused of spending too much, its routine accusation against arch-rival Labor, and although it has already more than doubled the nation's debt, the Government has decided to outsource its spending decisions to the banks. Ironically, the banks have today emerged to say the $90 billion loan package announced this week won't work.

Commonwealth Bank chief, Matt Cormyn, has just stated the obvious, small businesses don't need a loan as much as direct assistance. Even if they did need a loan it would take a month to organise the $90 billion program and by then, we suspect, it might be too late anyway. Small businesses needed "direct" assistance, Cormyn told the ABC.

As for the QE program, it is more nuanced than our explanation above - written to capture the essence of what is going on here (the very mention of the letters QE make the eyes glaze over and that sleepy feeling come on).

Dissecting QE

To the Reserve Bank's QE program, Quantitative Easing or QE is technobabble for the RBA creating new money or, as they say, "printing money". But there is a twist to this QE - a twist which has entirely eluded the mainstream media.

Rather than the Government raising money - that is by issuing bonds - it has designed a program, a liquidity facility effectively, to be operated by the banks.

In other words, the banks get money at attractive rates and they are expected to lend it to their customers.

Herein lies the rub; how do the banks lend their new billions to small businesses with no customers?

Anybody who has been awake over the last ten days and has engaged in the old-fashioned activity of conversation will have heard story after story about people who had a business last month but barely have one now. Their problem is not how to grow their business by borrowing money. They don't have any customers.

To be more specific, and as predicted here, the government has privatised its QE program. Instead of issuing bonds and deciding who needs it most, it has outsourced that decision-making process to the banks.
How QE works, a simple explanation:

The govt issued bonds and sold them to people - mostly the banks - who bought them in the primary bond market.

So the CBA, for instance, owns some bonds.

CBA decides to sell its bonds, say to Westpac. This is the secondary market. Now WBC owns those bonds.

The Reserve Bank says, Hello Westpac, would you have $100 million worth of government bonds yielding 2.5 per cent? Why don't you lend them to us under a "repo" or repurchase arrangement?

What do we get if we lend them to you, asks Westpac?

We are going to give you their value in cash but at an interest rate of just 0.25 per cent.

That's a good deal, says Westpac, because we can borrow at1 per cent but you are only asking for 0.25 per cent.

No worries says the RBA, which then prints brand spanking new money, a billion dollars worth to buy the bonds from Westpac.

Will Westpac now lend this money to its small business customer; the restaurant with no customers and an panicking landlord?

No, it is far more likely to lend it to BP whose service stations have been holding motorists to ransom charging $1.88 a litre for petrol while the price of crude oil is collapsing another 20 per cent to $US25 a barrel, down 60 per cent year to date.

So, the government has so far seen interest rates cut despite it being clear there will be little relief from even lower rates - and despite the banks declining to pass it all on to customers. It has buck-passed its QE program to the banks - which in reality is more of a liquidity bail-out than anything which can help small business. It has already had its $90 billion loan program queried by the banks themselves - all while ramping up its buying of assets from the banks.

Over the past week the Reserve Bank's repo holdings have soared to $20 billion which means they are using taxpayer money to cover the banks' risk in their mortgage lending books. Most of this is RMBS, bundles of residential mortgages.
Question: what will be the upshot of the coronavirus crisis? Answer: big business will grow in power and market dominance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bankster Bailout: will the trickle-down package trickle beyond the banks and big business? - Michael West

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Question: who will benefit from the Reserve Bank's massive loan and money-printing program? Answer: banks, bond traders and corporate customers. Answer: because the Government has delivered control of its money-printing program to the Reserve Bank and the banks.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/29/father-of-wall-streets-fear-gauge-sees-wild-volatility-continuing-until-coronavirus-cases-peak.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Members of the House of Representatives convened this afternoon to debate with Finance Minister Wopke Hoekstra, pressing government to speed up emergency economic measures in the wake of the Covid-19 outbreak.

The measures in question, which would require significant changes to be made to the government budget, are aimed at aiding small businesses, entrepreneurs and self-employed workers in the Netherlands whose business has been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Minister Hoekstra said that he "well understood" the concerns expressed by the MPs, adding that they will be taken seriously as talks move forward with the government, members of the private sector and EU officials. He also noted that the plan was not a perfect one, and that mistakes will likely surface during its implementation.

The government's proposed measures include a stimulus package to support the business community by injecting between 10 and 20 billion euros into the economy over the course of the next three months. As a major budgetary issue it has to pass through Parliament. While a majority of the MPs present expressed overall support for the government's proposal, GroenLinks, the PVV and the SP voiced concern that the stimulus would nevertheless leave many people behind.

"Cleaners, security guards, bus drivers and warehouse workers, these are the people who keep the Netherlands running," said Mahir Alkaya, speaking for the SP. "And they are far from being acknowledged enough."

"We already knew before corona that 'business as usual' was unsustainable," added Lammert van Raan, MP for the PvdD. "It is of course inconceivable that with corona we keep that same type of economy going."

European spending and assistance

The debate comes a day after Hoekstra expressed his belief that the EU should increase its stimulus spending to cushion the economic blow caused by the Covid-19 outbreak. "My plea is, go on and free up money in the here and now, the current budget, for territories that are especially stricken by coronavirus," he told RTL Nieuws in an interview on Tuesday. "I'm thinking in particular about the financial-economic side, but also in the new multi-year budget, please think about this kind of crisis scenario."

However, the Finance Minister added in today's debate that it nevertheless remains too early to tap into the European Stability Mechanism (ESM)-an organization designed to provide financial assistance to Eurozone countries. This is in spite of other EU countries, such as Germany and Italy, having voiced support for using the ESM to cope with the mounting economic pressure brought about by Covid-19.

Government measures to assist entrepreneurs

The Dutch Cabinet introduced a package of six immediate measures to help businesses of all sizes stay afloat, with assistance for freelancers and contractors. Among them is a scheme to allow businesses to reduce the working hours and the salary of its contracted staff, with the government paying up to 90 percent of the reduction directly to the employee for up to three months. The business would still be responsible for the remaining ten percent.

Two popular programs providing government-backed bank loans and bank credit for small and mid-sized businesses, called GO and BMKB, were also expanded. The amount large businesses can utilize in the scheme was also increased to 150 million euros. The microfinancing program Qredits is also relaxing its payback period, with six-month deferments possible for businesses struggling because of the pandemic. The interest rates on their loans will also be capped for now at two percent.

Similar government-backed loans will also be used to provide working capital to small and midsized farms.

Freelancers and self-employed people can also qualify for the BBZ program, which tops up their monthly salary to a basic wage. Normally a three-month loan, this no longer has to be paid back. However, some non-citizen residents may not qualify for the program.

The tax office is granting deferment of income tax, corporate tax, payroll tax, and value-added tax with no fines for late payment. Companies will have to provide evidence at a later date to demonstrate the deferment was necessary. Overdue taxes will not be subject to interest.

The Dutch government also wants to work with municipalities to reduce local tax burdens that companies face, and to make sure that local arts and culture organizations are still able to survive, particularly because of the national ban on gatherings. Additional coompensation is being determined, in consultation with the European Commission, for sectors badly hit by the pandemic, including cafes, restaurants, and travel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Broad support for Dutch economic response to pandemic; Concern for many workers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Members of the House of Representatives convened this afternoon to debate with Finance Minister Wopke Hoekstra, pressing government to speed up emergency economic measures in the wake of the Covid-19 outbreak. The measures in question, which would require significant changes to be made to the government budget, are aimed at aiding small businesses, entrepreneurs and self-employed workers in the Netherlands whose business has been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated March 23, 2020 01:32:11

A $66 billion economic lifeline is being thrown at Australians as the nation braces for an end to life as it knows it, amid a looming coronavirus lockdown of the worst hit parts of the country.

The Prime Minister has announced a second-stage $66 billion economic stimulus package and urged people to cancel all non-essential travel in a bid to protect Australia in the face of the coronavirus pandemic.

The National Cabinet, which brings together the Prime Minister, premiers and chief ministers, will meet tonight to find a way to force Australians to adhere to social distancing, following the temporary closure of Bondi Beach after people failed to adhere to government spacing requirements.

"The measures that we will be considering tonight means that state premiers and chief ministers may have to take far more draconian measures to enforce social distancing," Prime Minister Scott Morrison said.

On the economic front, small businesses will receive cash payments up to $100,000 and some welfare recipients will receive another $750.

Additional measures include:

Temporarily doubling the Jobseeker Payment, previously called Newstart

Allowing people to access $10,000 from their superannuation in 2019-20 and 2020-21

Guaranteeing unsecured small business loans up to $250,000

Reducing deeming rates by a further 0.25 per cent

"We cannot prevent all the many hardships, many sacrifices that we will face in the months ahead," Mr Morrison said.

"And while these hardships and sacrifices may break our hearts on occasion, we must not let them break our spirit and we must not let them break our resolves as Australians."

It builds on the measures included in the first $17.6 billion economic stimulus package announced more than a week ago.

Taking into account the first round of stimulus measures, and those announced by the Reserve Bank this week, the total economic assistance package is worth $189 billion, according to the Government, equivalent to 9.7 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product.

The Prime Minister was set to meet with Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese on Sunday to discuss when the Parliament would sit during the next six months.

A reduced number of politicians will return to Parliament House on Monday to pass legislation required to implement the stimulus measures.

Cash for welfare recipients

The second $750 payment will be automatically paid to an estimated 5 million people on July 13. The first $750 payment, announced in the first stimulus package, will be paid on March 31.

The Government will temporarily double the Jobseeker Payment, previously called Newstart, providing people with an additional $550 a fortnight.

The payment will be available to sole traders and casual workers, provided they meet income tests. The Government will waive asset tests and waiting periods to access the Jobseeker Payment.

"The nature of these payments and the purpose of these payments are changing," the Prime Minister said.

"This is clearly saying that we expect this to go on for some time and we know that those vulnerable groups may need additional income support during those periods."

Support for small business

Not-for-profits and small businesses with a turnover under $50 million will receive a tax-free cash payment of up to $100,000, with a minimum payment of $20,000 for eligible companies.

The payments will be delivered by the Tax Office as a credit on activity statements from late April.

The Government expects 690,000 businesses employing 7.8 million people and 30,0000 not-for-profits will be eligible for measures in the stimulus package.

The Commonwealth is also offering to guarantee unsecured loans of up to $250,000 for up to three years.

Access to superannuation

The Government will allow people to access up to $10,000 from their superannuation this financial year and in 2020-21.

People will not pay tax on the money they access, and withdrawals will not affect Centrelink or veterans' payments.

There will also be a temporary 50-per-cent reduction in superannuation minimum drawdown requirements for account-based pensions in 2019-20 and 2020-21.

Looming travel restrictions

Ahead of National Cabinet, Victoria and New South Wales confirmed they were on the verge of dramatic lockdowns in the worst coronavirus-hit communities.

Mr Morrison said people could continue to go to the supermarket and work, but all interstate and long-distance trips should be cancelled.

South Australia will close its borders at 4pm on Tuesday, a move like those announced in the Northern Territory and Tasmania.

"The more Australians themselves assist us in this fight against the virus to protect lives and livelihoods, the more and better able we are to ensure that Australia comes out stronger on the other side," Mr Morrison said.

"It is a simple plea, we need you.

"We need you to do your bit when it comes to social distancing and keeping that healthy distancing, to respecting and following the rules that we are setting down, but more stronger measures will be coming and they will be coming in more localised areas to deal with outbreaks."

School closures set for discussion

Victoria wants an agreement to close schools from Tuesday, and if the other states do not agree, it will go it alone.

The Prime Minister said any national decision about schools would be based on the advice of health experts.

"It is still the case, and the evidence is, that the incidence of the coronavirus amongst younger people is far lower than it is for the rest of the population, and so the health risk to children is less than to other parts of the population," he said.

"It is also still the fact that if there were widespread school closures across the country, that that would seriously impact and disrupt the health workforce that is needed to save lives."

Topics: government-and-politics, infectious-diseases-other, federal-government, health, respiratory-diseases, covid-19, community-and-society, australia

First posted March 22, 2020 11:27:07

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cash for small businesses and loans guaranteed in $66b coronavirus stimulus package

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated March 23, 2020 01:32:11 A $66 billion economic lifeline is being thrown at Australians as the nation braces for an end to life as it knows it, amid a looming coronavirus lockdown of the worst hit parts of the country.