I suppose that for large sums on current accounts, banks could start charging large fees, but the risk of seepage to actual cash is real, and brings other problems (as in: run on the bank), which can only then be avoided by confiscatory policies, which is a whole other ballgame. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I am not being a wise guy, I seriously am confused about this.
But the killer situation is to borrow for holding.
Compared to not doing anything, here is what happens: At T=0, you borrow $100. You don't change your spending patterns in any way. Then, at T=1, you repay your loan with a mere $95. Yes, those $95 are worth more than the $100 you borrowed at T=0. But simply holding the cash made those $100 of yore turn into $100 of today -more valuable. So you are still left with $5 more than in the situation where you did not borrow, at zero risk (in fact, at negative risk, since the institution might collapse and never require those $95), for not doing anything.
OK, it's not quite true: somebody may steal those banknotes in the meantime. So you need someplace safe to hold them. But any rate negative by more than the risk of theft won't work. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
Case 1: Inflation rate is 5%, interest rate is 10%. I loan somebody $100; at the end of a year he or she pays back $110. I have gained $10 of cash due to interest, and lost $5 of value due to inflation. Net gain of $5.
Case 2: Inflation rate is 0%, interest rate is 5%. I loan $100; get back $105. I have gained $5 in cash, not lost or gained any value. Net gain of $5.
Case 3: Inflation rate is -5%, interest rate is 0%. I loan $100, get back $100. I have not lost or gained any cash, but have gained $5 of value due to deflation. Net gain of $5.
Case 4: inflation rate is -10%, interest rate is -5%. I loan $100, get back $95. I have lost $5 of cash, but have gained $10 in value due to inflation. Net gain of $5.
What is wrong with this argument?
Case 5: Inflation rate is -10%, interest rate is now adjusted by the government to -10%. I loan $100, get back $90. I have lost $10 of cash, but have gained $10 in value due to inflation. Net gain of $0 and there is risk. So I don't make loans in this case, either...
Hmmm.
It is possible to impose that cash must flow, by replacing bills with stamped vouchers that lose their value if they are not stamped (change of hands) at a set frequency.
It is an "out of the box" tinkering with the velocity of money. Was tried locally in Germany during the great depression. Could be tried today, thinking big and using new "enforcement" technologies like e-wallets, e-cash, etc... Pierre
He proposed that international (centrally issued quasi special drawing right) "Bancor" trade balances would incur a charge on both positive and negative balances.
What we got was the US IMF/World Bank approach with the dollar as global reserve currency and giving the US a free ride to unlimited "seigniorage".
Worse than that, the fact that the interest charges are made only on negative balances has created a one way flow from poor to rich nations. This is a form of positive feedback that has ended up - which as mathematically it had to in a world of finite resources - in continual instability and, eventually, our current terminal meltdown.
My understanding is that the concept of "money that rusts" was that of Gesell, and that Keynes was a big fan of Gesell's. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
