Skip to main content

Why negative interest rates are a good idea.

Interest rates are never a trivial issue.

First, let me state that I don't trust government. It's modern form is a system of power that's outlived its current Constitutional form's feudal birth. Historical "democracies", including our own, built their societies on authority asserted by violence in the form of land expropriation, tribute, slavery, and legal tender. Government provides violence to enforce injustice at the tip of the pen and the sword. The unjust assertion of absolute authority over any geographical area is how the concept of property, something that is "one's own", has been applied to the Earth. Why would I want to grant this system, of telling people what to do and who they have to pay, a money monopoly? It is a guarantee of the suppression of credit to the benefit of the usurious.

I support a negative interest rate policy because credit is the just basis of value in a money, not the right to demand it in return as rent. The lower the interest rate, the easier it is for people to pay back their loans, increasing the likelihood of them being paid back, especially as they can earn more credit by developing a history of good credit.
Meanwhile, since I can't pretend that the State will disappear tomorrow, the negative interest idea is currently working in Switzerland. "Its central bank on Thursday left its key policy rate at minus 0.75% despite what a government report has called a “booming” economy... the SNB said Swiss gross domestic product should grow between 2.5% and 3% this year. However, it reduced its inflation forecast for 2020 to 1.2% from 1.6%."
The policy is doing exactly what Gesell said it would do when he suggested it as part of his Natural Economic Order. Easy credit, stable prices. The other component of his just society was Georgism, sharing our Earth.
Why are we so against negative interest as an idea? The modern dogma of time-preference, that people deserve and must have "more" in currency than what they lend, is divorced from the consumable goods we all desire and use the most. Why can't we see we're making a bet on society with a money that decays? It is a bet that our cooperation will provide them more value in the future. That seems as fair as money could be to me. It turns it into something that is good to acquire, spend, and invest in your neighbors rather than to simply accumulate and earn interest upon.
One of the loveliest outcomes of the idea to me is that it makes you see clearly that the truly safest way to save is by investing in your community. Legal tender gives someone control of the money supply, creating confusion on the issue of usury through policy and its resulting inflation and deflation.
A stable currency and cheap credit would be best for laborers as it enables them to maximize experience of wealth by maximizing their purchasing power. That's why I support it, even if I'd have to settle for it in the form of central bank for now.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The man who walks lightly

The man who walks lightly is the one living for Virtue. He perceives the difficulty in his path, so he moves to his destination with ease. He produces ten thousand things, but he owns very little. He would rather yield a foot for what is right, than gain an inch by the wrong means. He never takes offense, but defends swiftly and surely. He requests his needs from others, served by many while commanding none. He is seen as a leader, because others follow his example.

Free Land, or the ideal mean for a Location Value funded Citizen's Dividend

If we want to liberate ourselves from one another, we can buy into the idea that we can more effectively share this planet. We can do so for the purposes of maximizing human autonomy and the experience of equal liberty for every citizen of the Earth, through each of their local communities. We have the means today to voluntarily buy into a federation of neighborhood scale land trusts with a global reach. Existentially, our birthrights are the greatest lottery of all of history. We can make that a game with winning odds for everyone. The desire to be free, to choose to live how we each wish to live, is strongly felt within each of us. But those who experience it most, unfortunately, value it least. They become so accustomed to protecting or jealously expanding their own experience of it that they have created a system of enforcing their own privileges at the cost of others. I believe all people ought to choose whosoever's service they wish to enter, but I do not believe any of

An Unapologetic Paraphrasing of Bastiat's Apology for Landed Property

This is my admittedly snarky paraphrasing of Bastiat's rambling apology on Landed Property in his Economic Harmonies . I think by translating the verbiage into modern terms, which I couldn't help but do so with a pinch of sarcasm, it becomes clear he didn't prove much of anything at all. Instead, a reader feels underwhelmed by its points and overwhelmed by the verbosity of his rather banal parables. Even though he shows what actually causes land to increase in value when he describes the improvements of a city/town growing around land, he insists that all the gained value obtained by landlords by that mechanism is actually just the fruits of their past labors, ignoring his own supposition that value comes from the service provided, in the case of Land, by a better site to occupy, not labor. If it pleases you, enjoy the following: The economists of all sorts say that landlord's charge rent for value they did not create. Most say it is unjust, but some begrudgingly ad