Can anybody rewrite what Callow said in a simpler way. I was confused by the words and the order of the phrases he used.
Callow at Westpac said the domestic logic, "in any country or zone where wages growth is weak and core inflation not on a clear self-sustaining uptrend", would otherwise be to ease policy. "Which is actually most of the world," he said.
source: http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKBN16N0OC-OCABS
Many economists are, like sports reporters and politicians, paid to make trivialities sound profound.
The context of what was said is that nominal interest rates are being raised worldwide due to increases in interest rates in the US, the world's largest financial market. The "otherwise" refers to the increase in US interest rates. So the meaning is that "if it were not for the increase in interest rates in the US, the best domestic policy for most countries, which currently have low inflation and weak growth in wages, would be to avoid increasing interest rates." It is unbelievably sloppy speech to disguise a meaningless utterance. "If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride." He is saying that if things were different, then domestic policy should be different. OK then.
Now he may have wanted to say that it would be preferable to stabilize US interest rates because rising interest rates are not good for most of the world, but, at least in what was reported, he does not get close to making any such clear statement. (I have no idea whether that statement is valid or not, but it is clear and meaningful.)
I'm not sure if this is exactly what is meant above, but this is my best interpretation:
Callow at Westpac said that the local thought process in any country or zone would have been to ease the policy, had it not been for the low rate of increase in wages paid, and the non self-sustainable inflation. However, this is not the case, as this is the problem in most countries of the world.
