Posted on 02/17/2016 9:41:33 AM PST by SeekAndFind
It’s full of all my gold. :>)
That’s another option. Metals is where I’ll go with some and the rest in the mattress.
Someone said guns retain value.
And if you can’t sell it, you can kill the neighbor’s pit bull for dinner.
Pit Barbeque.
:>)
You are in bizarro world. Only Obama would be able to get away with an ecnomy as horrible as it is without it being the leading news item every single day.
“If savings accounts aren’t accruing much interest, companies and savers are incentivized to†- withdraw most of their money in cash and store if safely on premise.
It’s why Larry Summers wants to outlaw the hundred dollar bill and why all the rest want to outlaw cash all together.
Ding! Ding! We have a winner. Pick up your kewpie doll at the counter please.
If rates go negative, I'm pulling everything out of the bank but enough to cover daily expenses.
RE: You know, what more people need are Swiss bank accounts. [Highest negative rate of all: -0.75%. ...dirty little secret there.]
These tells me the following:
1) Too much money flowing everywhere into the Swiss Banks.
2) Banks are DISCOURAGING people from depositing their money there.
Similar positive offset that there is now to prime, probably with a floor to cover mortgage loan servicing costs. It will always be somewhere from 0 (with set closing costs) or just above depending on bank competitiveness. I doubt anyone is going to get paid to take out loans.
I cant get my head around negative interest rates. It is a concept I cannot fathom.
The Fed does not have a clue. Obviously low interests are the problem. Raise them to 5% so savers could get a decent return on their savings and people would spent those earnings.
A lot of folks look at their principal balance as their earnings engine and don’t want to touch that.
The paradox is that if they go negative wanting you to withdraw your savings and spend it, good luck getting any significant amount from your account. The banks just won’t have it.
The Fed does not have a clue. Obviously low interests are the problem. Raise them to 5% so savers could get a decent return on their savings and people would spent those earnings.
A lot of folks look at their principal balance as their earnings engine and don’t want to touch that.
The paradox is that if they go negative wanting you to withdraw your savings and spend it, good luck getting any significant amount from your account. The banks just won’t have it.
We already have negative rates. If real inflation is north of 2-3%...not the absurd 1% the government states, then we have had negative rates for years.
That looks like the best analysis. Thank you.
A few hints here on what’s happening:
1. It all goes back to manufacturing. A nation needs agriculture to survive, but agriculture will not make a nation rich or keep it rich. Energy is a supply source for manufacturing. A nation needs revenues of value from manufacturing to spend enough for good services from government (infrastructure, defense, etc.). Manufacturing “based” in nation number 1 but actually being done in another nation will impoverish employees in nation number 1 and only keep investors of that manufacturing wealthy temporarily. Even the “trickle-down” to cheap services eventually stops. The offspring of those investors are unfit to manufacture and therefore unfit to manage manufacturing (aptitudes learned over lifetimes—not in schools).
2. The plans for negative interest rates are only an intended extension of the failing debt regime. Negative interest rates should spur many employed people to appear to be busy, productive and useful. So, regulators, NIMBYs and bosses of the service “industry,” get out there and stop more people from working.
;-D
When they ban cash gold, silver, land, brass and lead will be the only places to go.
You’ll pay the bank to hold your cash and you’ll pay a little (relatively) to borrow from the bank. Not bad unless you’re living on savings and counting on its appreciation to somehow carry you through but that hasn’t been happening for years already.
It’s essentially negative now, what with the real inflation rate far exceeding the rate they pay out.
But seriously, if they want a run on the banks, this would be a good way to trigger it.
I ran my bank 2 years ago. No bank savings. FedGov is poised to bail-in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.