Negative Interest Rates and Capital Consumption

Ever since the ECB has introduced negative interest rates on its deposit facility, people have been waiting for commercial banks to react. After all, they are effectively losing money as a result of this bizarre directive, on excess reserves the accumulation of which they can do very little about.

At first, only a small regional bank, Deutsche Skatbank, imposed a penalty rate on large depositors – slightly in excess of the 20 basis points banks must currently pay for ECB deposits. It turns out this was a Trojan horse. Other banks were presumably watching to see if depositors would flee Skatbank, and when that didn’t happen, Commerzbank decided to go down the same road.

However, there is an obvious flaw in taking such measures – at least is seems obvious to us. The Keynesian overlords at the central bank who came up with this idea have failed to consider a warning Ludwig von Mises once uttered about the attempt to abolish interest by decree.

Obviously, the natural interest rate can never become negative, as time preferences cannot possibly become negative: ceteris paribus, consumption in the present will always be preferred to consumption in the future. Mises notes that if the natural interest rate were to decline to zero, all consumption would stop – we would die of hunger while investing all of our resources in capital goods, i.e., while directing all of our efforts and funds toward production for future consumption. This is obviously a situation that would make no sense whatsoever – it is simply not possible for this to happen in the real world of human action.

Mises warns however that if interest payments are abolished by decree, or even a negative interest rate is imposed by decree, owners of capital will indeed begin to consume their capital – precisely because want satisfaction in the present will continue to be preferred to want satisfaction in the future regardless of the decree. This threatens to eventually impoverish society and reduce it to a state of penury:

 

 

If there were no originary interest, capital goods would not be devoted to immediate consumption and capital would not be consumed. On the contrary, under such an unthinkable and unimaginable state of affairs there would be no consumption at all, but only saving, accumulation of capital, and investment.

Not the impossible disappearance of originary interest, but the abolition of payment of interest to the owners of capital, would result in capital consumption.

The capitalists would consume their capital goods and their capital precisely because there is originary interest and present want-satisfaction is preferred to later satisfaction. Therefore there cannot be any question of abolishing interest by any institutions, laws, and devices of bank manipulation. He who wants to “abolish” interest will have to induce people to value an apple available in a hundred years no less than a present apple. What can be abolished by laws and decrees is merely the right of the capitalists to receive interest. But such laws would bring about capital consumption and would very soon throw mankind back into the original state of natural poverty.”

 

(emphasis added)

 

mises_0
Ludwig von Mises: he warned that the abolition of interest payments would induce the owners of capital to consume rather than invest it. Society would soon be impoverished as a result.

(Photo via Wikimedia Commons)

 

Of course today’s central bankers to a man seem to believe that what makes the economy grow is “spending” and consumption. This is putting the cart before the horse. Since the accumulation of capital threatens to go into reverse due to their policies, there may well come a time period during which reports of aggregate economic statistics appear to indicate that “economic growth has returned”, while all they reflect in reality is the fact that scarce capital is in the process of being consumed. This process is also known colloquially as “eating one’s seed corn”.

 

How to Counter Deposit Flight: The Cash Ban Debate is Revived

In practical terms, the main reason why large depositors have only grumbled, but not (yet) fled the banks imposing penalty rates on them – in spite of the fact that fractionally reserved banks are not merely warehousing and guarding their funds, but using them for their own business operations – is that withdrawing money in the form of cash and storing is doesn’t come for free either.

Not only must one pay for storage, security and insurance in that event, but one is also cut off from the convenience of effecting payments with a mouse click. Moreover, possession of large amounts of cash, although officially not illegal, is dangerous because it is “suspicious” in the eyes of the State’s minions.

In the US, private persons who are found in possession of large amounts of cash must fully expect that it will be confiscated without trial or any evidence of a crime by means of the “civil forfeiture” procedure. As the Washington Post informs us, in spite of a recent storm of negative publicity regarding these government-directed shakedowns, “the racket is still humming”. Below is a video by comedian John Oliver discussing the topic that gives a good overview of the problem (Oliver may only be a comedian, but he is certainly an informative one tackling a great many interesting subjects).

 

 

John Oliver on the shakedown procedure known as “civil forfeiture”.

 

Nevertheless, large depositors could presumably take the necessary legal precautions (again at a cost) to ensure their cash does not become suspect. So there is certainly a possibility, especially if the penalties incurred for keeping large amounts of money on deposit should become even greater, that depositors may decide to remove their money from the banking system and keep it in the form of cash currency.

The probability of this happening has increased further due to the decision of European governments – which governments elsewhere are planning to emulate – to “bail in” bank creditors in the event of bank failures. In the modern fractionally reserved banking system, depositors are legally held to be creditors of the bank, even though this flatly contradicts the contractual promise that they will be able to withdraw their money on demand.

Absent this legal contradiction, fractional reserve banking would of course not be possible. By extending this privilege to banks, governments have greased the wheels of modern-day welfare/warfare statism, so depositors holding money in demand deposit accounts will continue to be regarded as “creditors of the bank”, regardless of the obvious absurdity of this legal doctrine. While we believe that it is proper and laudable to shield tax payers from having to bail out failing banks, the situation in which owners of demand deposits find themselves in is completely untenable.

However, depositors have now been put on notice: not only will they bear the full risk of losing the bulk of their funds when overextended banks are failing next time around, on top of this they will now also have to pay for the dubious “privilege” of bearing this risk. If banks were indeed merely warehousing the money in demand deposits at arm’s length, the payment of a fee for their warehousing services and any other services they may offer in connection with such deposits would be entirely proper and sensible. However, if depositors are forced to take the risk that their money could be lost as a result of the bank’s business activities (over which they have no control), they have very little reason to happily pay such a fee.

Interestingly, when the Austrian press recently reported on the decision by Commerzbank to impose a penalty interest rate on its large depositors, Kenneth Rogoff’s idea of simply banning cash currency was mentioned in the same breath. Apparently Mr. Rogoff is currently touring the world beating the drums for this dubious (to put it very mildly) plan. Here is a translation of the respective passage in the article:

 

“Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff even argues in the daily paper FAZ that cash currency should be banned altogether. Central banks could impose negative interest rates more easily that way, he explained. Tax evaders and criminals would also find life more difficult. From this perspective, banknotes and coins appear superfluous, he said at a presentation at the IFO institute in Munich. Measures to spur the economy could be implemented more easily that way.”

 

(emphasis added)

Since we have discussed Rogoff’s plan in great detail before (see “Meet Kenneth Rogoff, Unreconstructed Statist”) there is no need to rehash all the arguments we made against it. We note though that Mr. Rogoff continues to craftily associate cash with “criminals”, while concurrently asserting that it is our duty to make central planning of the economy easier for the interventionists, in spite of its recurring failure.

In our opinion, a cash ban would constitute a criminal act. One of the reasons is precisely that people would no longer be able to remove their funds from fractionally reserved banks. They would be forced to bear the risks these banks are exposed to, whether they want to or not. Implementing a cash ban would not only amount to an abrogation of all financial privacy, it would clearly represent an abrogation of fundamental property rights as well.

It is noteworthy that Mr. Rogoff is a member of the “monetarist” Chicago school. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe has rightly pointed out, it demonstrates how utterly infested with statism modern society has become that the Chicago school is today held to be the most “conservative” and “free market oriented” school of thought that is still considered acceptable to the establishment.

No wonder – as Mr. Rogoff so clearly demonstrates, it is statist through and through. Ludwig von Mises reportedly once left a meeting at the Mount Pelerin Society in medias res, muttering something along the lines of “you are nothing but a bunch of socialists” after having listened to various representatives of the Chicago School drone on about which liberties the State should abridge next in its relentless pursuit of welfare statism. While it is apparently not certain that this incident really happened, Mises would have been quite correct with this assessment. As Mr. Hoppe notes:

 

“This seemingly unstoppable drift toward statism is illustrated by the fate of the so-called Chicago School: Milton Friedman, his predecessors, and his followers. In the 1930s and 1940s, the Chicago School was still considered left-fringe, and justly so, considering that Friedman, for instance, advocated a central bank and paper money instead of a gold standard. He wholeheartedly endorsed the principle of the welfare state with his proposal of a guaranteed minimum income (negative income tax) on which he could not set a limit. He advocated a progressive income tax to achieve his explicitly egalitarian goals (and he personally helped implement the withholding tax). Friedman endorsed the idea that the State could impose taxes to fund the production of all goods that had a positive neighborhood effect or which he thought would have such an effect. This implies, of course, that there is almost nothing that the state can not tax-fund!

In addition, Friedman and his followers were proponents of the shallowest of all shallow philosophies: ethical and epistemological relativism. There is no such thing as ultimate moral truths and all of our factual, empirical knowledge is at best only hypothetically true. Yet they never doubted that there must be a state, and that the state must be democratic.

Today, half a century later, the Chicago-Friedman school, without having essentially changed any of its positions, is regarded as right-wing and free-market. Indeed, the school defines the borderline of respectable opinion on the political Right, which only extremists cross. Such is the magnitude of the change in public opinion that public employees have brought about.”

 

(emphasis added)

 

rogoffHarvard economist Kenneth Rogoff wants cash to be banned to make the imposition of central bank intervention “easier”. Ironically this unreconstructed statist found himself hounded by the political left when a few errors were found in the data used in his book on government debt and growth (the book tried to prove with the help of statistics that too much government debt retards growth. The incident illustrated the danger of relying on statistics instead of sound economic theory to make one’s case).

(Photo via Imago)

 

Conclusion:

The “unintended consequences” of the negative interest rate policy will vastly outweigh the perceived advantages of any short term boost to economic activity they may provoke. Consumption is not what produces economic growth, and giving capital owners an incentive to consume rather than invest their capital will only hasten Europe’s economic decline.

Given that the failure of these interventions is already absolutely certain, we must be prepared for even more interventions to “fix” the failures produced by the previous ones. Mr. Rogoff’s plan would certainly enable more State control over the citizenry and the economy. Many modern-day intellectuals appear quite keen on abolishing the market economy and replacing it with some form of command economy (just as long as their personal plans are implemented of course). They should be careful what they wish for.

 

 
 

Emigrate While You Can... Learn More

 
 

 

Dear Readers! We are happy to report that we have reached our turn-of-the-year funding goal and want to extend a special thank you to all of you who have chipped in. We are very grateful for your support! As a general remark, according to usually well informed circles, exercising the donation button in between funding drives is definitely legal and highly appreciated as well.

   

Bitcoin address: 1DRkVzUmkGaz9xAP81us86zzxh5VMEhNke

   
 

6 Responses to “The Consequences of Imposing Negative Interest Rates”

  • Instead of equating cash to criminals, one might begin to consider equating Ivy League Economist to criminals. I have felt the end of all freedom, mainly economic freedom would come when one could no longer hold cash for free exchange in their pockets. The result is the banks would never have to prove their solvency and would in effect acquire title to virtually all property through the mechanism of compound interest and credit banking. Since the banking system creates all money at interest, it never creates enough money to pay principal and interest and the only way this ever balances out is if the bank is forced to bear, through loss or bankruptcy, the weight of the bad debts it issues. Instead, it is the depositor that bears the burden, through inflation and the fact that the only money that can pay the losses of the bank is the money in the banks. We have returned in fact to Egypt and the banking system is Pharaoh. I believe it was Rothbard that said that the way to destroy freedom is to remove money from the system.

    The system of paying by electronic cards, such as Visa are MasterCard is to draw a continual tax from commerce, paid not to the government, but to the bankers. The idea they have found a way to discount their own liabilities flies in the face law in general. I have seen banks charge to cash checks that should be paid on demand. All unilateral conditions in consumer finance favor the bank. Unilateral contracts are void, due to the fact the conditions unfairly favor one party. To never have to deliver funds flies in the face there were ever funds in the first place and in fact leave nothing to stand in the way of such operators from them stealing every last dime of property in society through the sleight of hand of mathematical formulas that few understand. Despite all that is written, few people understand that the money loaned by a bank is never money put in the bank, but credits shared through the banking system of like produced money. Thus our money supply is nothing but a cycling bunch of bank created credits that exist only due to the fact a loan contract was executed between a customer and bank, using state endowed privilege. This is in fact a violation of the prohibition of titles of nobility in the US Constitution. It is only the banks that don’t have to pay their debts.

  • In fact, even small account holders are being charged.

    Banks on mainland Europe have been charging fees for accounts that have less than Euro10K for years.

    Is that not the same as negative interest rates? That not withstanding, the range of “services” provided by a bank have progressively increased in cost in the past 10 years too.

  • No6:

    And the price of Gold keeps falling.
    I would not be surprised to see another big down move prior to the Swiss election.

    • VB:

      Not any time soon. A temporary low seems to be in place. We’ll probably get a rally to the strong resistance at $1500.

    • Kreditanstalt:

      If they ever DID try to ban cash, the gold price – of real, physical metal – would go NUTS.

      Have you seen the jittery nature of “the (Comex) gold price” in the last week or so…? Regularly up and down a dollar or two at each tick…most unusual, if one remembers the long weeks and months of flat-lining USD gold “prices” before. Something has changed; there must be ENORMOUS stress among those needing to procure real metal.

      As someone just pointed out elsewhere, the Chinese, Russians and Indians can easily consumer 50 tonnes in no time at all…yet this “Comex” playpen, with its paltry 27 tonnes of “registered” metal, is still permitted (purposely, by government) to set the price of the real metal…

      THAT is the REAL manipulative tool.

  • VB:

    Pater, you’ve written in the past that the EU banks would not be impacted by a negative interest rate because they would just re-classify their money from “deposits at the ECB” to “reserves” or something like that. Why didn’t this happen and why are they passing the negative interest rate to the customer?

    Regarding the idea of removing one’s funds from the banks, dunno where you live, but in my country it is not easy to do, at least legally. Where would you keep them? At home it is not safe. And the law explicitly forbids you to store cash in a safe deposit box. Although this law is widely ignored, in a pinch the government could always decide to enforce it, open the safe deposit boxes and confiscate the cash.

    Regarding the “civil assets forfeiture” racket, there was recently some article that in Washington DC there were about 1000 cases during the past year when the police confiscated (without any arrests or charges) sums as small as $20. Apparently, any time the cops need some pocket change they feel free to shake the man on the street…

Your comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Most read in the last 20 days:

  • French labour union workers and students attend a demonstration against the French labour law proposal in Marseille, France, as part of a nationwide labor reform protests and strikes, March 31, 2016. REUTERS/Jean-Paul Pelissier/File PhotoHow the Welfare State Dies
      Hollande Threatens to Ban Protests Brexit has diverted attention from another little drama playing out in Europe. As of the time of writing, if you Google “Hollande threatens to ban protests” or variations thereof, you will find Russian, South African and even Iranian press reports on the topic. Otherwise, it's basically crickets (sole exception: Politico).  Gee, we wonder why?   They don't like him anymore: 120.000 protesters recently turned Paris into a war zone. All...
  • The-answer-is-yesToward Freedom: Will The UK Write History?
      Mutating Promises We are less than one week away from the EU referendum, the moment when the British people will be called upon to make a historic decision – will they vote to “Brexit” or to “Bremain”? Both camps have been going at each other with fierce campaigns to tilt the vote in their direction, but according to the latest polls, with the “Leave” camp’s latest surge still within the margin of error, the outcome is too close to call.   The battle lines are...
  • nails-in-a-bed-of-nails-new-yorker-cartoonGoing... Going... Gone! The EU Begins to Splinter
      Dark Social Mood Tsunami Washes Ashore Early this morning one might have been forgiven for thinking that Japan had probably just been hit by another tsunami. The Nikkei was down 1,300 points, the yen briefly soared above par. Gold had intermittently gained 100 smackers – if memory serves, the biggest nominal intra-day gain ever recorded (with the possible exception of one or two days in early 1980). Here is a picture of Haruhiko Kuroda in front of his Bloomberg monitor this...
  • water houseA Market Ready to Blow and the Flag of the Conquerors
      Bold Prediction MICHAELS, Maryland – The flag in front of our hotel flies at half-mast. The little town of St. Michaels is a tourist and conference destination on the Chesapeake Bay. It is far from Orlando, and even farther from Daesh (a.k.a. ISIL) and the Mideast.   St. Michaels, Maryland – the town that fooled the British (they say, today). Photo credit: Fletcher6   Out on the river, a sleek sailboat, with lacquered wood trim, glides by, making hardly a...
  • queen_gold-840x501Rule Britannia
      A Glorious Day What a glorious day for Britain and anyone among you who continues to believe in the ideas of liberty, freedom, and sovereign democratic rule. The British people have cast their vote and I have never ever felt so relieved about having been wrong. Against all expectations, the leave camp somehow managed to push the referendum across the center line, with 51.9% of voters counted electing to leave the European Union.   Waving good-bye to...
  • junkThe Problem with Corporate Debt
      Taking Off Like a Rocket There are actually two problems with corporate debt. One is that there is too much of it... the other is that a lot of it appears to be going sour.   Harvey had a good time in recent years...well, not so much between mid 2014 and early 2016, but happy days are here again! Cartoon by Frank Modell   As a brief report at Marketwatch last week (widely ignored as far as we are aware) informs us:   “Businesses racked up debt in the...
  • Incrementum signalIn Gold We Trust, 2016
      The 10th Anniversary Edition of the “In Gold We Trust” Report As every year at the end of June, our good friends Ronald Stoeferle and Mark Valek, the managers of the Incrementum funds, have released the In Gold We Trust report, one of the most comprehensive and most widely read gold reports in the world. The report can be downloaded further below.   Gold, daily, over the past year - click to enlarge.   The report celebrates its 10th anniversary this year. As...
  • deflated-souffleThe Fed’s  Doomsday Device
      Bezzle BALTIMORE –  Barron’s, in a lather, says the market is facing the “Two Horsemen of the Apocalypse.” Huh?   Only two? There were four last time!   Supposedly, the so-called Brexit – the vote in Britain this Thursday on whether to leave or remain in the European Union (EU) – and uncertainty over where the Fed will take U.S. interest rates are cutting down stocks faster than a Z-turn mower. But Brexit is a side show. As our contacts in London...
  • rate_hike_cartoon_10.15.2015_largeJanet Yellen’s $200-Trillion Debt Problem
      Blame “Brexit” BALTIMORE – The U.S. stock market broke its losing streak on Thursday [and even more so on Monday, ed.]. After five straight losing sessions, the Dow eked out a 92-point gain. The financial media didn’t know what to say about it. So, we ended up with the typical inanities, myths, and claptrap.   “Investors” are pushing the DJIA back up again..apparently any excuse will do at the moment. The idea may backfire though, as exactly the same thing happened...
  • Brexit supporterGold and Brexit
      Going Up for the Wrong Reason Gold is soaring. It should—and a lot—but in my view not for the reason it is. Indeed gold is insurance for uncertain times, a time that Brexit seems to represent. But insurance is an administrative cost — one must minimize its use.   August gold contract, daily – gold has been strong of late, but this seems to be driven by “Brexit” fears - click to enlarge.   Moreover, insuring against Brexit might ironically be equivalent...
  • times are changingVive la Revolution! Brexit and a Dying Order
      A Dying Order Last Thursday, the Brits said auf Wiedersehen and au revoir to the European Union. On Friday, the Dow sold off 611 points – a roughly 3.5% slump. What’s going on?   Surprise winners of the “Britain has political talent” contest...   In Europe and the U.S., the masses are getting restless. Mr. Guy Wroble of Denver, Colorado, explained why in a short letter to the Financial Times:   The old liberal world order is dying because the...
  • cameron at the EUBrexit Paranoia Creeps Into the Markets
      European Stocks Look Really Bad... Late last week stock markets around the world weakened and it seemed as though recent “Brexit” polls showing that the “leave” campaign has obtained a slight lead provided the trigger. The idea was supported by a notable surge in the British pound's volatility.   Battening down the hatches...   On the other hand, if one looks at European stocks, one could just as well argue that their bearish trend is simply continuing – and...

Austrian Theory and Investment

Support Acting Man

Own physical gold and silver outside a bank

Archive

j9TJzzN

350x200

Realtime Charts

 

Gold in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

Gold in EUR:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

Silver in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

Platinum in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

USD - Index:

[Most Recent USD from www.kitco.com]

 

THE GOLD CARTEL: Government Intervention on Gold, the Mega Bubble in Paper and What This Means for Your Future

 
Buy Silver Now!
 
Buy Gold Now!
 

Oilprice.com