Pages:
Author

Topic: Negative Interest Rates - page 2. (Read 2344 times)

hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 500
Forza Roma
February 23, 2016, 12:05:38 PM
#25
This idea doesn't work... so you take out credit, and you receive interest on the credit you take out? That doesnt' make any sense. Also it would mean when you deposit money to a bank your savings decrease... Which means that everyone would be trying to take out loans, and nobody would be offering loans. Which would not work at all.

The negative rates are only charged by the central bank to the banks, not to consumers (because the banks don't pass the negative rates on so as not to alienate customers). So the theory is by penalizing banks for holding money by charging them interest to do so, they are incentive to loan it out instead, thereby creating economic activity and spurring the economy.

Which is why banks are speaking out against NIRP; they get charged and consumer demand is still on life support. Banks were borrowing at 0% and getting paid to store their excess reserves with the government. But the crux is that there is very little appetite to borrow to the level needed for a consumption driven economy. There is no recovery. That tide has gone out.

So the CB NIRP is the trial balloon for introducing NIRP to the public; once we get 'used' to the idea and the world doesn't end, it's coming. And NIRP won't necessarily mean people begin to spend, an example being the report in Japan that sales of safes have skyrocketed, pre-empting the move.
I think Bitcoin is now becoming more popular and that is also good for the future. The world is now more becoming digital.
And I also hope that Bitcoin will have a great future and that many stores also accept Bitcoin.
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1115
★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!
February 22, 2016, 11:20:29 PM
#24
This idea doesn't work... so you take out credit, and you receive interest on the credit you take out? That doesnt' make any sense. Also it would mean when you deposit money to a bank your savings decrease... Which means that everyone would be trying to take out loans, and nobody would be offering loans. Which would not work at all.

The negative rates are only charged by the central bank to the banks, not to consumers (because the banks don't pass the negative rates on so as not to alienate customers). So the theory is by penalizing banks for holding money by charging them interest to do so, they are incentive to loan it out instead, thereby creating economic activity and spurring the economy.

Which is why banks are speaking out against NIRP; they get charged and consumer demand is still on life support. Banks were borrowing at 0% and getting paid to store their excess reserves with the government. But the crux is that there is very little appetite to borrow to the level needed for a consumption driven economy. There is no recovery. That tide has gone out.

So the CB NIRP is the trial balloon for introducing NIRP to the public; once we get 'used' to the idea and the world doesn't end, it's coming. And NIRP won't necessarily mean people begin to spend, an example being the report in Japan that sales of safes have skyrocketed, pre-empting the move.

While agreeing with everything you wrote about the diminishing utility of trying to force banks to make loans, I don't necessarily agree that this is a trial run for introducing negative interest rates to the public. The banks are already being charged negative interest, so if they thought they could pass it along without alienating customers, they would be doing so already. But consumers aren't going to tolerate banks charging them to hold their money, they're going to pull it out and stuff it in a mattress, further removing liquidity from the banks and the markets. The CBs know this is an obvious and likely scenario, so they're not going to push negative rates so far that they actually become a larger risk to the system than not. At least, that's how I see it.
legendary
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1002
February 22, 2016, 08:00:36 PM
#23
I dont get this negative interest rates..Maybe the government/bank wants people to take their money from banks and invest directly somewhere or to start a business.This way it can help the economy and create jobs.

This is literally the reason they have negative interest rates.

Its a form of getting cheap money from the public lol.

And honestly we have no way around it, since most of the people already go for safe investments like bonds then an actual stock. People look for security so yeah.. lol.
legendary
Activity: 4354
Merit: 3260
February 22, 2016, 07:00:58 PM
#22
 Negative interest rates encourage risky lending practices, which was the primary cause of the 2008 financial crisis. Banks won't care as much if they lose money on bad loans because they will lose even more if they don't loan the money at all.
legendary
Activity: 961
Merit: 1000
February 22, 2016, 06:47:58 PM
#21
This idea doesn't work... so you take out credit, and you receive interest on the credit you take out? That doesnt' make any sense. Also it would mean when you deposit money to a bank your savings decrease... Which means that everyone would be trying to take out loans, and nobody would be offering loans. Which would not work at all.

The negative rates are only charged by the central bank to the banks, not to consumers (because the banks don't pass the negative rates on so as not to alienate customers). So the theory is by penalizing banks for holding money by charging them interest to do so, they are incentive to loan it out instead, thereby creating economic activity and spurring the economy.

Which is why banks are speaking out against NIRP; they get charged and consumer demand is still on life support. Banks were borrowing at 0% and getting paid to store their excess reserves with the government. But the crux is that there is very little appetite to borrow to the level needed for a consumption driven economy. There is no recovery. That tide has gone out.

So the CB NIRP is the trial balloon for introducing NIRP to the public; once we get 'used' to the idea and the world doesn't end, it's coming. And NIRP won't necessarily mean people begin to spend, an example being the report in Japan that sales of safes have skyrocketed, pre-empting the move.
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1115
★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!
February 22, 2016, 05:15:38 PM
#20
This idea doesn't work... so you take out credit, and you receive interest on the credit you take out? That doesnt' make any sense. Also it would mean when you deposit money to a bank your savings decrease... Which means that everyone would be trying to take out loans, and nobody would be offering loans. Which would not work at all.

The negative rates are only charged by the central bank to the banks, not to consumers (because the banks don't pass the negative rates on so as not to alienate customers). So the theory is by penalizing banks for holding money by charging them interest to do so, they are incentive to loan it out instead, thereby creating economic activity and spurring the economy.
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1115
★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!
February 22, 2016, 05:13:27 PM
#19
I dont get this negative interest rates..Maybe the government/bank wants people to take their money from banks and invest directly somewhere or to start a business.This way it can help the economy and create jobs.

This is literally the reason they have negative interest rates.
hero member
Activity: 2128
Merit: 655
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
February 22, 2016, 02:38:55 PM
#18
One implication of real NIRP (as opposed to today's "fake" NIRP) may be that gold, silver and Bitcoin will go up.

The way the elites have always made sure the system worked is that inflation must be higher than the return on "safe" fiat-based assets (short term govt. bonds, insured bank deposits, etc.), and that lower rate must be higher than the return on non-state-issued assets (gold, silver.)  Otherwise, investors would move en mass into the "wrong" assets (short-term Treasuries instead of stocks or real estate, gold instead of dollar-based assets, etc.) and the elites lose their power to profit by financial inflation.

(So you notice that gold's return is held at zero, via the gold standard, through most of the 400-year history of modern money.  It only goes up over short spans of time when the elites lose control temporarily.  During the "fiat" period it behaves more-or-less the same way.)

The problem today, for the elites, is that inflation is too low, and it's hard to make the other two rate go below zero (since people can always hoard cash, today, if their banks really give them negative interest.)  So the three rates are squeezed together around the 0 to 2% range.  People are accepting the small loss to inflation by keeping their savings in the safest assets, to avoid risking their money.

(And why shouldn't they?  Unlike the Great Depression, almost none of the debt overhang has been wiped off the books.  Investors are right to bet that the authorities will be afraid to print or borrow too much money to stimulate the economy, which would really burst the financial asset bubble.)

So, the idea is to push interest on "safe" fiat-based assets lower, below zero, so when people see their bank balances slowly evaporate (and presumably cash has been abolished, so they can't put it under the mattress,) they'll decide to spend and invest, and stimulate the economy.

(This is not the whole story, of course.  NIRP is not essentially different from centuries of the same kind of policies -- it's just that the elites hit a zero interest road block, below which they can't push interest rates, while there is cash.  These centuries of policies are what's really responsible for the current economic pain in the first place -- via propping up the values of financial assets with state power during stable times, and letting the pain fall on everyone when confidence collapses in some over-valued asset.  Only the elites really benefit from this system.)

But there's one thing not many commentators discuss -- the rate of return on non-state-based assets, ie gold, silver and Bitcoin.  Since this rate must be significantly below the "safe" rate for fiat-based assets, when the latter rate goes negative, the returns on gold, silver and Bitcoin must go even more negative for confidence in fiat money to be kept.  This may mean the elites must allow or engineer the prices of the non-state assets to go very high (again, over a short time span,) just so they will have enough power to suppress their rates of return over the period of NIRP to very negative values.  (The suppression of gold prices during the "fiat" era is well documented by two serious books -- in effect, the elites won't and can't leave the gold standard, whatever they say in public.)
sr. member
Activity: 462
Merit: 250
February 22, 2016, 06:05:15 AM
#17
Who will be ok in saving money with a negative profit that is mean i will give you my money and every month take some to your self it is noy logique
legendary
Activity: 961
Merit: 1000
February 22, 2016, 05:25:50 AM
#16


http://www.bloombergview.com/quicktake/negative-interest-rates

Are Negative Interest Rates an end of fiat monetarism? What effects do you believe this monetary gamble causes in short- mid- or longterm?

Lets's discuss.



I have a whole slew of problems with ZIRP, and especially NIRP:

1)  Savers are very much hit under NIRP.  NIRP makes it harder for anyone saving money to get ANY income off their savings.  Bad!
2)  NIRP will very possibly (probably?) lead to banning CA$H!  .gov will then get to see EVERYTHING you buy.  Do you like that?
3)  ZIRP and NIRP (especially NIRP) cause all kinds of weird perversions (eg, incentive to pay bills faster)!
4)  Lack of proper CA$H will encourage OTHER digital currencies, Bitcoin may get discouraged or BANNED.

Those are just off the top of my head...

NIRP is very bad, to my knowledge we have not seen this before in modern history.


More...:

5)  Electrons in the bank could easily be seized should .gov want to...
6)  Credit card companies already skim some 3% per transaction, banning CA$H would mean they make even more money.
7)  We would pay to have "money" in the bank, but I doubt that they would pay us to borrow it...  Bigger save/borrow spread.


OROBTC,

Yes, many problems, but all just symptoms of the debt problem - there is too much debt, for governments and for the banking system. NIRP for excess bank reserves is just the trial balloon for mainstream implementation after they failed to stimulate demand via ZIRP / QE. The reason they fail is because the average Joe knows the economy still isn't right and they are scarred. There is no demand, it is the ultimate form of people power. Despite all the rhetoric for 7 plus years main street still won't rejoin the congo line. The debt life is done for this generation, much like the Depression begat a generation of frugal citizens.

So they can take savers money even more via NIRP, but it still won't spur demand. They can ban cash, make it all electronic but it won't help. People will just withdraw further, stash what they have and ride it out. And big companies and retirement funds will die a diminished returns death, anathema to the way the system is designed to operate. But when the money starts flowing from helicopters (the next move), then the game changes to inflation.





legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1852
February 21, 2016, 11:55:17 PM
#15


http://www.bloombergview.com/quicktake/negative-interest-rates

Are Negative Interest Rates an end of fiat monetarism? What effects do you believe this monetary gamble causes in short- mid- or longterm?

Lets's discuss.



I have a whole slew of problems with ZIRP, and especially NIRP:

1)  Savers are very much hit under NIRP.  NIRP makes it harder for anyone saving money to get ANY income off their savings.  Bad!
2)  NIRP will very possibly (probably?) lead to banning CA$H!  .gov will then get to see EVERYTHING you buy.  Do you like that?
3)  ZIRP and NIRP (especially NIRP) cause all kinds of weird perversions (eg, incentive to pay bills faster)!
4)  Lack of proper CA$H will encourage OTHER digital currencies, Bitcoin may get discouraged or BANNED.

Those are just off the top of my head...

NIRP is very bad, to my knowledge we have not seen this before in modern history.


More...:

5)  Electrons in the bank could easily be seized should .gov want to...
6)  Credit card companies already skim some 3% per transaction, banning CA$H would mean they make even more money.
7)  We would pay to have "money" in the bank, but I doubt that they would pay us to borrow it...  Bigger save/borrow spread.
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
February 21, 2016, 10:50:48 PM
#14
This idea doesn't work... so you take out credit, and you receive interest on the credit you take out? That doesnt' make any sense. Also it would mean when you deposit money to a bank your savings decrease... Which means that everyone would be trying to take out loans, and nobody would be offering loans. Which would not work at all.
hero member
Activity: 1414
Merit: 505
Backed.Finance
February 21, 2016, 10:48:13 PM
#13
I dont get this negative interest rates..Maybe the government/bank wants people to take their money from banks and invest directly somewhere or to start a business.This way it can help the economy and create jobs.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1005
★Nitrogensports.eu★
February 21, 2016, 09:37:18 PM
#12
Honestly negative interest rates are bullshit (to put it bluntly). In other words it is fail of our current economic system.
Reducing interest rates is supposed to increase spending and investment, inducing economic growth.
The problem with this solution is - it won't work. All we achieve is temporary distraction from much needed reform.
Pab
legendary
Activity: 1862
Merit: 1012
February 21, 2016, 09:13:48 PM
#11
Crazy.Last attempt  to keep that  dead  system alive Investors  see  that in very negative light
Nikkei went down 25%  from  time whan   negative interest rates has been introduced
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1007
February 19, 2016, 05:52:19 PM
#10
I guess in the right environment negative interest rates are a good thing, but at the same time it just saps wealth out of the economy while slightly revaluing the currency.

I personally cannot attest to the actual effects of negative interest rates; it'll be interesting to see where it will go.
hero member
Activity: 616
Merit: 503
★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!
February 19, 2016, 05:22:47 PM
#9
there are already European countries that do this, like Switzerland, but it has never been tried before in Japan and the USA. I think it'll be a total disaster
In switzerland they did it because too many foreigners were buying CHF during the crisis to secure their money. In this situation, negative interest rates are not too bad...
At least the national bank is winning some money on other people's greed  Smiley
newbie
Activity: 57
Merit: 0
February 19, 2016, 04:32:38 AM
#8
there are already European countries that do this, like Switzerland, but it has never been tried before in Japan and the USA. I think it'll be a total disaster
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 500
February 19, 2016, 03:37:57 AM
#7
Yes act absurd, because why would anyone want to borrow money with a negative return on assets,
when it can simply keep the money and there is no loss?
legendary
Activity: 2982
Merit: 1506
Pie Baking Contest: https://tinyurl.com/2s3z6dee
February 19, 2016, 02:42:43 AM
#6
It is a short-term measure. I don't think any country can have negative interest rates over a long term.
Beyond a point, the economy stops responding to monetary policy.

Negative interest rate has proven that it will increase the country's economy system. By using this kind of rate, the government are encouraging people to spend their money to make business instead of just keeping it in the bank therefore with more business around the country's economy will be increasing as well
Pages:
Jump to: