szh: There is little to debate even with zero growth money supply. Bad debt wont' be repaid plus part of equity ( btw nobody mentioned here that equity is also part financing ) will be wiped out so losses will be sourse of interest for good debt and source of dividend for good business. Of course total wealth will only grow via population and productivity growth. I saw US statistics where in 19th century there was (although volitile) deflation -0.4% with real 4+ pct growth.
There is little to debate even with zero growth money supply. Bad debt wont' be repaid plus part of equity ( btw nobody mentioned here that equity is also part financing ) will be wiped out so losses will be sourse of interest for good debt and source of dividend for good business. Of course total wealth will only grow via population and productivity growth. I saw US statistics where in 19th century there was (although volitile) deflation -0.4% with real 4+ pct growth.
True. There will always be uncertainty of the future thus a positive risk premium on the pure rate of interest. But it might happen that positive risk premium is not enough to carry the rate to a positive teritorry. At least for some very creditworthy institutions.
Also what you imply is a zero-sum game. And you may be right on nominal monetary zero-sum game. But wealth increase is not dependent on the monetary situtaion. Thus even if the monetary total is fixed and a zero-sum game, the wealth would increase anyways.
In gold standard "insuficient risk premium" will be quickly killed by keeping gold in safe deposit box and reducing money supply. In current system "insuffcient risk premium" is possible because your choices are tougher - loose slowly via inlfation in safe deposit box or US Treasuries or buy hard assets and get all that volatility. Those who can't bear (seems most can't) high volatility of hard assets accept negative yield and nominal stability.
Nominal interest rates are comprimised of 3 things.
Natural rate of interest + Risk premium.+ Price Inflation premium
Natural rate can never be zero (or a negative number) because it is the price of time and time is always scarce. At least in this universe.
Risk premium can never be zero (or a negative number) because future is always uncertain.
But the price inflation premium maybe zero or a negative number, in which case it would be a price deflation premium.
And this negative number may force the nominal interest rate to zero or even a negative number if it is higher than the sum of natural rate and risk premium.
Of course this is in theory but even if this was the case the markets would function. People would still lend money, etc.
Correct logic (Yen is good example) for the present monetary system. But in gold standard nobody will expect inflation premium in the long run so that you won't see zero nominal rates.
ktibuk: PeterWellington: ktibuk:By lending one would assume the risk of default but would get rid of the maintenance expenses which would eat at the value of the stuff that is hoarded. If there's a cost to holding and protecting money, then giving it to someone else does not dissolve that cost, it simply transfers it. If you sell an old beat up car to someone, the bad brakes don't somehow get fixed during the transfer. The new owner now has to pay for maintenance and repairs, and he'll account for those costs when he decides how much he wants to pay you for it. The same is true with money transfers. What you're looking for is a cheaper provider of safeguarding services, not really a loan. Yes but the debtor doesnt want to hold the money. He wants to use it, invest with it. So he doesn't have to face the cost of "holding the money". So there would be some incentive for people to lend out money even in a zero interest enviroment.
PeterWellington: ktibuk:By lending one would assume the risk of default but would get rid of the maintenance expenses which would eat at the value of the stuff that is hoarded. If there's a cost to holding and protecting money, then giving it to someone else does not dissolve that cost, it simply transfers it. If you sell an old beat up car to someone, the bad brakes don't somehow get fixed during the transfer. The new owner now has to pay for maintenance and repairs, and he'll account for those costs when he decides how much he wants to pay you for it. The same is true with money transfers. What you're looking for is a cheaper provider of safeguarding services, not really a loan.
ktibuk:By lending one would assume the risk of default but would get rid of the maintenance expenses which would eat at the value of the stuff that is hoarded.
If there's a cost to holding and protecting money, then giving it to someone else does not dissolve that cost, it simply transfers it. If you sell an old beat up car to someone, the bad brakes don't somehow get fixed during the transfer. The new owner now has to pay for maintenance and repairs, and he'll account for those costs when he decides how much he wants to pay you for it.
The same is true with money transfers. What you're looking for is a cheaper provider of safeguarding services, not really a loan.
Yes but the debtor doesnt want to hold the money. He wants to use it, invest with it. So he doesn't have to face the cost of "holding the money".
So there would be some incentive for people to lend out money even in a zero interest enviroment.
If the original debtor purchased something with the money, then someone else has the money and that person is now saddled with the cost of safeguarding it (and has also charged for it in their transfer). This is true no matter how many times the money is transferred, just as in my car example where the bad brakes don't somehow fix themselves no matter how many new owners the car is transferred to. Also consider that whatever is purchased with the money also has its own cost of protection, unless it's used for immediate consumption but think about the default risk of such a loan. There's no way to escape these costs. You can only find a cheaper safeguarding service. By loaning your money out, you're only *adding* a default risk. If someone can protect your money cheaper than you can, then use that protection service.
Well, safekeeping is not expensive that you have to lend to cover it. For example UK based Bullion Vault charges 0.12%. and GLD ETF 0.4%.
But I really saw nominal short-term negative rates in fiat asset JPY in the interbank market. You know BOJ under quantitative easing charged banks for exess reserves and banks charged their customers on liabilty side. It was profitable to lend at slightly negative rate because they paid even more negative rate.
I read russian press - there is huge demand for safekeeping service so banks raised fees. People draw money and put it in deposit boxes sacrificing sort of 10% interest in 12% inflation environment. See there is market for full reserve banking its just not connected with payment system yet.
ktibuk: But the price inflation premium maybe zero or a negative number, in which case it would be a price deflation premium. And this negative number may force the nominal interest rate to zero or even a negative number if it is higher than the sum of natural rate and risk premium. Of course this is in theory but even if this was the case the markets would function. People would still lend money, etc.
No, because the marginal cost of lending an asset to holding the asset would be negative. It would be silly to lend at a non positive interest rate in any circumstance.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap