Cashing In: How to Make Negative Interest Rates Work(blogs.imf.org)
blogs.imf.org
Cashing In: How to Make Negative Interest Rates Work
https://blogs.imf.org/2019/02/05/cashing-in-how-to-make-negative-interest-rates-work/
15 comments
This bitcoin/gold fantasy is cute but most people choose real estate. For millenia the only store of value with positive long term return wasn't gold but landholding (with it's terrible side effects like unpredictability of returns, correlation with population growth and the need to tend to the land). I guess real estate is modern version of landholding.
It seems like XIX/XX century which made the landholding class bancrupt due to emergence of bonds, rents and industrial investment were just a short term abberation.
It seems like XIX/XX century which made the landholding class bancrupt due to emergence of bonds, rents and industrial investment were just a short term abberation.
You may be correct, but rent-seeking is neither just nor fair. Some might argue that gold and BTC are easier to hide from scavenging authoritarian authorities - don't worry, they will all be authoritarian and scavenging soon.
The US has confiscated gold within living memory. The US taxes everything earned by its citizens, and forces then to FATCA(T) and F(U)BAR their wealth, ready for the day. Watch out for capital controls. One could say that the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" are actually fake initiatives designed to track individual activities and assets - a "War on Cash" for the purpose of NIRP.
In many countries the benefit of property is only true because of the tax treatment, such as tax-exempt mortgage interest relief, including interest-only mortgages which take interest as a business expense (i.e. speculative BTL landlords), and exempting capital gains tax on residential property. It is highly likely that the only tax-exempt capital asset sees speculative demand.
The US still has a tax deduction on debts, for private individuals and companies. Obviously debt should not be subsidized! In the UK, the mortgage interest tax relief (MIRAS) was abolished 30 years ago, but only now are they tightening the rules for BTL landlords. However, they have introduced various other subsidies (e.g. Help To Buy) and even an exemption of Inheritance Tax just for property - this is corruption of democracy on behalf of the rent-seekers.
It also depends on the planning laws and the demographics. Planning laws are always and everywhere corrupt in favor of existing NIMBY property owners (often including a select group of mafiosi & oligarchs).
Many western populations are declining as indigenous fertility rates plunge and the Boomers die off (e.g. Italy, Japan). Only some accommodate immigrants to make up for the loss, and only some of those actually have public acceptance for that immigration (let me guess - globalists, employers and ... property owners).
The US has confiscated gold within living memory. The US taxes everything earned by its citizens, and forces then to FATCA(T) and F(U)BAR their wealth, ready for the day. Watch out for capital controls. One could say that the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" are actually fake initiatives designed to track individual activities and assets - a "War on Cash" for the purpose of NIRP.
In many countries the benefit of property is only true because of the tax treatment, such as tax-exempt mortgage interest relief, including interest-only mortgages which take interest as a business expense (i.e. speculative BTL landlords), and exempting capital gains tax on residential property. It is highly likely that the only tax-exempt capital asset sees speculative demand.
The US still has a tax deduction on debts, for private individuals and companies. Obviously debt should not be subsidized! In the UK, the mortgage interest tax relief (MIRAS) was abolished 30 years ago, but only now are they tightening the rules for BTL landlords. However, they have introduced various other subsidies (e.g. Help To Buy) and even an exemption of Inheritance Tax just for property - this is corruption of democracy on behalf of the rent-seekers.
It also depends on the planning laws and the demographics. Planning laws are always and everywhere corrupt in favor of existing NIMBY property owners (often including a select group of mafiosi & oligarchs).
Many western populations are declining as indigenous fertility rates plunge and the Boomers die off (e.g. Italy, Japan). Only some accommodate immigrants to make up for the loss, and only some of those actually have public acceptance for that immigration (let me guess - globalists, employers and ... property owners).
It's a lot easier to buy bitcoin than property.
Central bankers will keep reducing borrowing costs to extend-and-pretend forever - they built their own trap over the past 40 years by asymmetrically lowering rates over and over again. There seems to be no escape from this global credit bubble.
German 10 year bonds are yielding -0.20%
https://www.investing.com/rates-bonds/germany-10-year-bond-y...
German 10 year bonds are yielding -0.20%
https://www.investing.com/rates-bonds/germany-10-year-bond-y...
I find the glib tone taken at what is essentially a nuclear-weapons grade policy plan with nearly unbounded power for the central bank very, very disturbing. Probably more disturbing than the proposal is the idea that some staffer at the imf wrote this up believing it should have a section labeled ‘pros and cons’.
Maybe the best thing I could say about it is that if it is to be tried, ideally it will be on a small scale so that the inevitable centralization and then destruction of the test region’s economy can be absorbed by the rest of the world.
On a more positive note, I can report that some crypto companies have experimented with policy like this. It shouldn’t be surprising to learn that almost nobody likes it, and in general chooses to transact elsewhere.
I think we can safely assume rational actors in this test region will spend at least rational and probably irrational energy to avoid such a system; nobody anywhere in the world wants money removed from their accounts by a central banker. The corollary is that this will be done only at the point of a gun.
Upshot: venezuela and Zimbabwe would be envious at the speed and richness of black market economies created in the wake of implementing such a plan.
Maybe the best thing I could say about it is that if it is to be tried, ideally it will be on a small scale so that the inevitable centralization and then destruction of the test region’s economy can be absorbed by the rest of the world.
On a more positive note, I can report that some crypto companies have experimented with policy like this. It shouldn’t be surprising to learn that almost nobody likes it, and in general chooses to transact elsewhere.
I think we can safely assume rational actors in this test region will spend at least rational and probably irrational energy to avoid such a system; nobody anywhere in the world wants money removed from their accounts by a central banker. The corollary is that this will be done only at the point of a gun.
Upshot: venezuela and Zimbabwe would be envious at the speed and richness of black market economies created in the wake of implementing such a plan.
We really need to stop this insanity and just take our medicine before the credit bubble gets even more extreme.
Be careful what you wish for. Most government programs are built on nothing but growth predictions that are... maybe not possible and probably dishonest.
I know it will be painful, but it’s going to get more and more painful when it does crash if we keep pumping more cheap credit into the system.
When I read stuff like this I can’t help thinking something about the world economy and financial system has got to be horribly broken. How have we reached the point that banning traditional currency so that we can drive interest rates negative can be seen as a rational response to our problems?
At risk of stating the obvious, the entire point of such interest rates would be to strongly prod the market (mostly the very wealthy) to spend and/or invest their cash rather than sit on it.
But the same thing could be accomplished by a much more conventional means: taxation and public spending.
If you’re a government seeking to stimulate the economy, why wouldn’t that be a saner option?
At risk of stating the obvious, the entire point of such interest rates would be to strongly prod the market (mostly the very wealthy) to spend and/or invest their cash rather than sit on it.
But the same thing could be accomplished by a much more conventional means: taxation and public spending.
If you’re a government seeking to stimulate the economy, why wouldn’t that be a saner option?
I tend to agree. Here's my opinionated point of view: The reason governments get away with printing too much money is the negative effects are subtle.
Under negative interest rates, people are going to see their bank account balance get smaller periodically. It doesn't matter if their purchasing power is identical to what it would be under a stable balance in a period of inflation. Yes, it would spur some more spending, but I think the cognitive impact of seeing your bank account bleed money will drive a behavioral shift away from traditional currencies to alternative stores of wealth. e.g. precious metals, crypto, real estate, etc.
In other words, the farther you ratchet the wrench, the less effective it will be. I would think after a point, nobody wants your e-cash, and people just continue to use cash among themselves - indifferent to your imposed exchange rate - with secondary markets for wealth storage popping up.
The article didn't really explore whether jurisdictions that introduced NIRP observed an uptick in "black market" currencies or untraditional stores of wealth.
Under negative interest rates, people are going to see their bank account balance get smaller periodically. It doesn't matter if their purchasing power is identical to what it would be under a stable balance in a period of inflation. Yes, it would spur some more spending, but I think the cognitive impact of seeing your bank account bleed money will drive a behavioral shift away from traditional currencies to alternative stores of wealth. e.g. precious metals, crypto, real estate, etc.
In other words, the farther you ratchet the wrench, the less effective it will be. I would think after a point, nobody wants your e-cash, and people just continue to use cash among themselves - indifferent to your imposed exchange rate - with secondary markets for wealth storage popping up.
The article didn't really explore whether jurisdictions that introduced NIRP observed an uptick in "black market" currencies or untraditional stores of wealth.
> Yes, it would spur some more spending, but I think the cognitive impact of seeing your bank account bleed money will drive a behavioral shift away from traditional currencies to alternative stores of wealth. e.g. precious metals, crypto, real estate, etc.
If people end up buying more stock or real estate as a result of lower interest rates, that's "mission accomplished" from a policy point of view. That counts as economic stimulus.
If people end up buying gold to fight inflation, they can just ban owning it (again). The same goes for crypto.
If people end up buying more stock or real estate as a result of lower interest rates, that's "mission accomplished" from a policy point of view. That counts as economic stimulus.
If people end up buying gold to fight inflation, they can just ban owning it (again). The same goes for crypto.
> At risk of stating the obvious, the entire point of such interest rates would be to strongly prod the market (mostly the very wealthy) to spend and/or invest their cash rather than sit on it.
"The rich" aren't sitting on cash, they're sitting on assets. It's the banks that are supposed to be punished for "sitting on cash" instead of lending out every last nickel twenty times over. The entire economy runs on cheap credit and "the rich" benefit by buying up the assets whose prices inflate as a result of it.
If that cheap credit dries up, the result will be a massive recession. Politically, interest rates must remain low at all costs.
> But the same thing could be accomplished by a much more conventional means: taxation and public spending.
No, it couldn't. The amount of money you can get from taxation is small compared to the money you can make appear magically in the economy through monetary policy. Almost the entire money supply is debt.
"The rich" aren't sitting on cash, they're sitting on assets. It's the banks that are supposed to be punished for "sitting on cash" instead of lending out every last nickel twenty times over. The entire economy runs on cheap credit and "the rich" benefit by buying up the assets whose prices inflate as a result of it.
If that cheap credit dries up, the result will be a massive recession. Politically, interest rates must remain low at all costs.
> But the same thing could be accomplished by a much more conventional means: taxation and public spending.
No, it couldn't. The amount of money you can get from taxation is small compared to the money you can make appear magically in the economy through monetary policy. Almost the entire money supply is debt.
> But the same thing could be accomplished by a much more conventional means: taxation and public spending.
* Such policy often comes with substantial lag times, as it is implemented via legislation. Monetary policy may be implemented more rapidly.
* Governments are incentivized to provide stimulus during economic slowdowns, but reducing spending and increasing taxes during economic expansions is unpopular and leads to lost elections.
* Public spending is frequently allocated for political purposes, absent consideration of economic impact, potentially leading to malinvestment.
The great inflation of the 1960s to the 1980s was due to such Keynesian policies and was halted by implementation of contractionary monetary policy. Ideally, carefully considered monetary and fiscal policies are implemented and utilized to maximize potential for economic stability.
* Such policy often comes with substantial lag times, as it is implemented via legislation. Monetary policy may be implemented more rapidly.
* Governments are incentivized to provide stimulus during economic slowdowns, but reducing spending and increasing taxes during economic expansions is unpopular and leads to lost elections.
* Public spending is frequently allocated for political purposes, absent consideration of economic impact, potentially leading to malinvestment.
The great inflation of the 1960s to the 1980s was due to such Keynesian policies and was halted by implementation of contractionary monetary policy. Ideally, carefully considered monetary and fiscal policies are implemented and utilized to maximize potential for economic stability.
> Such policy often comes with substantial lag times, as it is implemented via legislation. Monetary policy may be implemented more rapidly.
And because of this we should drop this whole democracy thing ? Parliaments have shown plenty that if the need is high enough, action can be very quick indeed.
And because of this we should drop this whole democracy thing ? Parliaments have shown plenty that if the need is high enough, action can be very quick indeed.
> And because of this we should drop this whole democracy thing ? Parliaments have shown plenty that if the need is high enough, action can be very quick indeed.
You've constructed a straw man argument. Instead of advocating for eliminating democracy, I highlighted some of the issues with relying exclusively on fiscal policy. An independent central bank can help resolve some of these concerns. Afterwards, I stated there was a need for both fiscal and monetary policy:
"Ideally, carefully considered monetary and fiscal policies are implemented and utilized to maximize potential for economic stability."
You've constructed a straw man argument. Instead of advocating for eliminating democracy, I highlighted some of the issues with relying exclusively on fiscal policy. An independent central bank can help resolve some of these concerns. Afterwards, I stated there was a need for both fiscal and monetary policy:
"Ideally, carefully considered monetary and fiscal policies are implemented and utilized to maximize potential for economic stability."
Yes, you're right. There's been a real difficulty getting central governments to invest to turn around a recession, so the monetary angle is the main direction allowed.
Because monetary policy is more effective than fiscal policy?
> Because monetary policy is more effective than fiscal policy?
It’s difficult to justify such a broad statement. Consider that the Fed likely deepened and lengthened the Great Recession by reducing the availability of liquid assets (QE) and simultaneously encouraging banks not to lend out the bank reserves they received in the process (IOER).
It’s difficult to justify such a broad statement. Consider that the Fed likely deepened and lengthened the Great Recession by reducing the availability of liquid assets (QE) and simultaneously encouraging banks not to lend out the bank reserves they received in the process (IOER).
The Fed making mistakes doesn't mean the claim is wrong.
My understanding was that QE helped, but IOER was a mistake.
My understanding was that QE helped, but IOER was a mistake.
> The Fed making mistakes doesn't mean the claim is wrong.
I was trying to highlight that policy missteps are damaging and can occur with either monetary or fiscal policy.
> My understanding was that QE helped, but IOER was a mistake.
I’m familiar with an argument that QE1 was effective while QE2 and QE3 failed to provide the same degree of stimulus, but I can’t recall the substance at the moment. Comparing the QE responses of US, Eurozone, and Chinese central banks indicates QE did stabilize economies, but it also drained liquid, fungible assets from the market at a time where liquidity was most needed.
I was trying to highlight that policy missteps are damaging and can occur with either monetary or fiscal policy.
> My understanding was that QE helped, but IOER was a mistake.
I’m familiar with an argument that QE1 was effective while QE2 and QE3 failed to provide the same degree of stimulus, but I can’t recall the substance at the moment. Comparing the QE responses of US, Eurozone, and Chinese central banks indicates QE did stabilize economies, but it also drained liquid, fungible assets from the market at a time where liquidity was most needed.
When interest rates are negative, monetary policy has literally zero effectiveness. That's the whole problem being discussed.
No. The central bank can stilll create money. Create enough money and inflation will result. There is no doubt about this. None at all.
Sort of misses the point. Despite the name, printing money isn't normally something one considers as "monentary policy", which is about interest rate setting and bank balance regulation. Yes, you can print your way out of a negative interest rate trap, because at its core printing money is exactly the same thing as deficit spending in the immediate term. So I don't see that's responsive: this is isomorphic to "just spend your way out".
I think common terminology would say that printing money is about as core a function of "monetary policy" as is imaginable. If the government has outstanding bonds, "printing money" by having the central bank buy them does not seem like "deficit spending". If the government has no outstanding bonds, and isn't running a deficit, it would be necessary to cut taxes to create a deficit (and hence bonds for the central bank to buy), or for the central bank to buy non-government assests. But this hypothetical is entirely unrealistic in present circumstances anyway.
But what you call things doesn't really matter. You don't offer any argument for why printing money wouldn't solve the problem, assuming there is one.
But what you call things doesn't really matter. You don't offer any argument for why printing money wouldn't solve the problem, assuming there is one.
And the whole point of the comment I was responding to was that fiscal policy would be saner than a specific monetary policy. They don't claim the monetary policy wouldn't be effective or even that it would be less effective.
Except it stops working when you can't go below 0?
That's not true, negative interest rates and QE are means of "going below zero".
QE clearly has "worked" in that the markets were propped back up, for the time being.
QE clearly has "worked" in that the markets were propped back up, for the time being.
> Except it stops working when you can't go below 0?
Central banks are able to utilize other policies (e.g. helicopter money via TLTROs) to provide economic stimulus at this level.
Central banks are able to utilize other policies (e.g. helicopter money via TLTROs) to provide economic stimulus at this level.
How is helicopter money substantially different from fiscal policy though?
My understanding is that helicopter money expands a central bank’s balance sheet (irreversibly) whereas fiscal policy does not, but the distinction is murky when considering policy like tax rebates.
Well, yeah, so the central bank bears the debt instead of the government general fund. So I guess I repeat the question.
I meant "how is it more effective stimulus?". The contention upthread was that we shouldn't use government spending for stimulus when monentary policy works better, to which I replied that monentary policy doesn't work at all in this situation, to which the suggestion comes back "well, just helicopter in money from the central bank as stimulus", which is... not monentary policy. It's just the same thing as spending modulo some accounting.
I meant "how is it more effective stimulus?". The contention upthread was that we shouldn't use government spending for stimulus when monentary policy works better, to which I replied that monentary policy doesn't work at all in this situation, to which the suggestion comes back "well, just helicopter in money from the central bank as stimulus", which is... not monentary policy. It's just the same thing as spending modulo some accounting.
> The contention upthread was that we shouldn't use government spending for stimulus when monentary policy works better
I actually disagreed with this assertion in another comment [0], so I think we're in agreement here.
> monentary policy doesn't work at all in this situation
This is incorrect, though. A central bank may loan money to banks at a negative rate, with the condition that the loan funds non-financial and household spending (TLTROs) [1]. Such policy can provide stimulus at or below 0% interest rates.
> "well, just helicopter in money from the central bank as stimulus", which is... not monentary policy
As stated, whether helicopter money is monetary or fiscal policy is murky, but likely depends on its implementation:
"In other words, fiscal policy is about managing the net financial assets of the non-government sector relative to the state of the economy, and monetary policy is about managing interest rates (and through it, to the best of its abilities, bank lending and deposit creation) relative to the state of the economy." [2]
If, for example, the legislature were to issue a tax rebate to each citizen, it would satisfy Fullwiler's definition of fiscal policy. However, if implemented by directly altering bank lending, as TLTROs attempt to do, it should be considered monetary policy.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20080372
[1] https://www.ecb.europa.eu/mopo/implement/omo/tltro/html/inde...
[2] http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2015/06/what-is-helicopte...
I actually disagreed with this assertion in another comment [0], so I think we're in agreement here.
> monentary policy doesn't work at all in this situation
This is incorrect, though. A central bank may loan money to banks at a negative rate, with the condition that the loan funds non-financial and household spending (TLTROs) [1]. Such policy can provide stimulus at or below 0% interest rates.
> "well, just helicopter in money from the central bank as stimulus", which is... not monentary policy
As stated, whether helicopter money is monetary or fiscal policy is murky, but likely depends on its implementation:
"In other words, fiscal policy is about managing the net financial assets of the non-government sector relative to the state of the economy, and monetary policy is about managing interest rates (and through it, to the best of its abilities, bank lending and deposit creation) relative to the state of the economy." [2]
If, for example, the legislature were to issue a tax rebate to each citizen, it would satisfy Fullwiler's definition of fiscal policy. However, if implemented by directly altering bank lending, as TLTROs attempt to do, it should be considered monetary policy.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20080372
[1] https://www.ecb.europa.eu/mopo/implement/omo/tltro/html/inde...
[2] http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2015/06/what-is-helicopte...
For one, it doesn't add to the debt.
It does, though. Or neither does, maybe. "Debt" in macroeconomics isn't a zero sum thing. The central bank lifting in money creates inflationary pressure instead of a negative number in the general fund transaction log, so to counteract that the promise is always made via whatever mechanism is chosen ("helicopter money" is a bewildering variety of distinct tricks) to "buy back" the stuff you dropped later on, to prevent the runaway inflation scenario.
So in practice, it's no different than spending with concomitant bond issue, which also promises to pay the money back. And is also an inflation pressure if the market decides the promise isn't worth the nominal interest rate.
So in practice, it's no different than spending with concomitant bond issue, which also promises to pay the money back. And is also an inflation pressure if the market decides the promise isn't worth the nominal interest rate.
I thought the whole point of helicopter money is because you want inflation and shouldn't be buying it back later.
> taxation and public spending
the rich would bear the burden if taxation and public spending is used. They don't want that. And guess who has enough resources to lobby and PR it?
the rich would bear the burden if taxation and public spending is used. They don't want that. And guess who has enough resources to lobby and PR it?
The top 20% of earners pay 87% of the tax burden. Is there something unreasonable about that amount?
They also own around 85% of the wealth so that should be the bare minimum they pay.
They should probably pay more since additional wealth has less value the richer you are (Someone earning $40,000/yr paying $10,000/yr more in tax is catastrophic, for someone earning $200,000/yr it's not)
They should probably pay more since additional wealth has less value the richer you are (Someone earning $40,000/yr paying $10,000/yr more in tax is catastrophic, for someone earning $200,000/yr it's not)
Playing with video game economies tells me that any tax on owning money/e-money would simply lead people to deal with an alternative, unpenalized store of wealth. I don't know how plausible that move is for the real world, since we can't all suddenly start pricing things in terms of potions and scrolls, but what's stopping this from making Bitcoin, or any coin as the people's de facto currency?
Unstable countries use USD as a stable currency.
And in the US the CHF (and Gold) was popular for the same purpose at times.
> Without cash, depositors would have to pay the negative interest rate to keep their money with the bank, making consumption and investment more attractive. This would jolt lending, boost demand, and stimulate the economy.
Or... it would spawn the mother of all asset bubbles in Bitcoin and to a lesser extent gold. Watch for anti-Bitcoin legislation as a canary in the coal mine signaling that the exits are about to slam shut.
Or... it would spawn the mother of all asset bubbles in Bitcoin and to a lesser extent gold. Watch for anti-Bitcoin legislation as a canary in the coal mine signaling that the exits are about to slam shut.
Pretty much... bitcoin/gold are not particularly productive assets either (verses investing in businesses) so I don't see how that helps the economy recover.
Wow. Just wow. Having already penalized savings (by way of inflation) for so long, now they want to actively penalize savings? They're coming up with strategies to prevent a bank run for taking people's money?
Have your cake and eat it too? If this is ever announced, US dollar will just have to collapse. There's no way any country will accept this.
Have your cake and eat it too? If this is ever announced, US dollar will just have to collapse. There's no way any country will accept this.
European bond rates have recently turned negative again, and they were negative for large chunks of the last decade: https://europe.pimco.com/en-eu/insights/viewpoints/why-the-b...
No prize for guessing why European capital has been flowing into the US for a decade.
I think a significant portion of America is not going to like a cashless society.
It's also sort of mind boggling to imagine interest being charged on deposits. Completely non-intuitive.
It's also sort of mind boggling to imagine interest being charged on deposits. Completely non-intuitive.
It would be crazy. As for intuition, I actually thought it was counterintuitive as a kid that banks would safeguard your money for free. I had the naive intuition that banks were providing a service of keeping money safe and accessible via debit cards, so you should be paying them.
Of course my intuition is now totally different, especially after a college degree in economics, but there is some sort of intuition to be had in negative interest rates. I wonder if there are historical precedents -- maybe in the dark ages, or in historical places without moneylending/investment ecosystems.
Of course my intuition is now totally different, especially after a college degree in economics, but there is some sort of intuition to be had in negative interest rates. I wonder if there are historical precedents -- maybe in the dark ages, or in historical places without moneylending/investment ecosystems.
> safeguard your money for free.
I'm stating the obvious here, but they never did keep the money for free. They used deposits as leverage for loans and received 100% of the interest as payment for keeping that money. Even then, for the longest time a lot of banks didn't have a "free" tier account like they do today so they were double dipping so to say.
Negative interest rates aren't a new thing though. I'm more interested in where modern monetary theory will end up taking us and if that will make negative interest rates more common. It seems like a lot of people want to go in that direction. I don't know enough about it yet to know if that's good or bad.
I'm stating the obvious here, but they never did keep the money for free. They used deposits as leverage for loans and received 100% of the interest as payment for keeping that money. Even then, for the longest time a lot of banks didn't have a "free" tier account like they do today so they were double dipping so to say.
Negative interest rates aren't a new thing though. I'm more interested in where modern monetary theory will end up taking us and if that will make negative interest rates more common. It seems like a lot of people want to go in that direction. I don't know enough about it yet to know if that's good or bad.
It seems mind boggling that you'd punish people for being fiscally responsible and living within their means. There are so many people today living paycheck to paycheck and who could be ruined by a minor financial shock, negative interest would encourage this behavior. In this scenario wouldn't you also be better off hoarding cash instead of putting money in a bank?
The next step would be to abolish cash, only allowing digital transactions.
And once again people fail to mention that digital transactions are taxed. Taxed more, relatively speaking, if you're poor.
It's only mind-boggling if, in the reserve banking world of today, you think money is anything but a social accounting ledger, rather than something concrete like a potato. As others have said, real rates can already be arbitrarily negative. It is only in the false belief that the numbers mean something intrinsically that you have such attachment to their not decreasing nominally.
People will get used to anything. Airline miles expire. Fruits rot. Buildings decay. It's not such a leap to see money exponentially "expire", too.
People will get used to anything. Airline miles expire. Fruits rot. Buildings decay. It's not such a leap to see money exponentially "expire", too.
The thing is, people generally do view currency as something concrete, and its value is largely based on faith in that concreteness. Once they stop having faith in that, it seems likely that they’ll stop valuing it.
I'm not saying it should be completely unhinged, but something like a -1% interest rate, is that so much more shocking than a +1% interest rate? I don't think so. People can deal with airline miles, hotel points, credit card rewards rationally; heck some are even paid in stocks or options which are much more volatile and uncertain. They seem to do fine.
There is a huge psychological difference between 1% and -1% interest. People do not react logically to loss (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion). Even though regular bank accounts have provided negative real interest for years, once they actually switch to explicitly "paying" negative interest, accounts will empty fast.
Except no one in a stable developed economy equates those loyalty programs and how those systems operate with how their nation’s currency operates, or should operate. Are you not annoyed at all the random games those companies play with those point systems? I don’t value those points highly at all because of the frequent devaluations they go through. I would not want the same fate for my currency. Are you willing to subject everything you’ve ever worked for to that kind of thing?
And one of the key reasons for maintaining a positive interest rate on lending is to encourage sound investment decisions by the capitalists borrowing it. Low interest rates beget more and more speculative investments, and more and more of those will go bad. And then you get a debt crisis.
And one of the key reasons for maintaining a positive interest rate on lending is to encourage sound investment decisions by the capitalists borrowing it. Low interest rates beget more and more speculative investments, and more and more of those will go bad. And then you get a debt crisis.
Good luck with your pension fund then.
You truly would need a totally cashless economy, Bitcoin would skyrocket if negative rates became the normal. Credit cards would beg you to carry a balance.
I don't understand the need for negative interest rate. Having the rate set at zero is already bad (it means that your savings erode at the maximum rate). People who are in a position to borrow would do so, and make gains when there is a recovery, while people who can't will be left behind (but i guess this is where the crux of the inequality comes from in the world).
This proposal is ridiculous, if honest, or it is instead a dishonest attempt to add to the power of governments.
To deal with a recession, it's plausible that the central bank might want to produce some inflation - if you think that "sticky wages" are an issue (ie, that people don't want their pay cut even if deflation means that its purchasing power would be maintained, making it difficult for employers to address unemployment by cutting wages and then hiring more people).
But a central bank can easily (very easily) cause inflation without needing to impose any particular interest rate. The central bank simply needs to buy assets using money it creates. This is standard practice. The assests are typically government debt, but they can be anything, if necessary. There is no doubt whatsoever that buying sufficient assets with newly-created money will cause inflation.
To deal with a recession, it's plausible that the central bank might want to produce some inflation - if you think that "sticky wages" are an issue (ie, that people don't want their pay cut even if deflation means that its purchasing power would be maintained, making it difficult for employers to address unemployment by cutting wages and then hiring more people).
But a central bank can easily (very easily) cause inflation without needing to impose any particular interest rate. The central bank simply needs to buy assets using money it creates. This is standard practice. The assests are typically government debt, but they can be anything, if necessary. There is no doubt whatsoever that buying sufficient assets with newly-created money will cause inflation.
>The proposal is for a central bank to divide the monetary base into two separate local currencies—cash and electronic money (e-money).
Wouldn't printing money (ie. quantitative easing ), accomplish the same thing, without the hassle of having cash dollars and e-dollars?
Wouldn't printing money (ie. quantitative easing ), accomplish the same thing, without the hassle of having cash dollars and e-dollars?
QE is just buying bonds. With that approach rates do have a floor at zero.
QE has a nominal rate of zero, but it has an arbitrarily large negative delta in terms of real rate of return lost when holding cash.
Both heavily advertised QE and negative interest rates are the same thing: the central authority is stealing your future money in hopes you will realize this and spend money in the present to raise "demand."
As an aside, the fact that anyone could possibly confuse this immediate, poorly thought-out consumption (eating your seed crop) with actual capital investment (under-consumption of your seed corn to grow more in the future) is beyond me.
Both heavily advertised QE and negative interest rates are the same thing: the central authority is stealing your future money in hopes you will realize this and spend money in the present to raise "demand."
As an aside, the fact that anyone could possibly confuse this immediate, poorly thought-out consumption (eating your seed crop) with actual capital investment (under-consumption of your seed corn to grow more in the future) is beyond me.
We'll I for one find this as a great opportunity to speculate where its cheapest to do so with max payoff on this not ending well :P
Sam Altman has written about a US Digital Currency (http://blog.samaltman.com/us-digital-currency), and considers the idea that it's issued as a "second" legal tender. This IMF article also considers the idea of a "second" currency, but for other practical reasons (negative rates). I think it's actually somewhat inevitable that this happens. Whether or not it would have any cryptographic properties is up for debate, but there is certainly exists enough existing experimentation in this area for the Fed to study such an approach.
Similarly, gold has a vault storage cost of up to 1%, and a mining inflation rate of about 2% (3 kt/yr on a total stock of ~150 kt), more if you just count tradable coins and bullion, without including jewelry.
I would also expect a cash warehouse to cost ~1% for storage, security and insurance.
Bank charges, such as ATM fees, can take the spread and transaction cost for cash up to 1%.
So NIRP can easily go to -1%, and maybe even -2% before the alternatives make sense.
However, I would expect a speculative rise in price for BTC and gold in the initial stages of a globally coordinated policy of NIRP and a War on Cash.