Why not? Seems to me it is all relative.
If cash is losing value in the mattress, say, at 25% per year, all other factors equal, I'd gladly pay 5% per year TO the bank to hold that money.
If cash is losing value it would lose value in a bank or in a mattress.
The stimulus they’re talking about is the ability to offer loans cheap. The only way that could be changed is if they offered to pay people to borrow money... ah... is that what you’re talking about? That if money’s NOT borrowed it losses more value?
Then you'd be losing 30%. Negative interest only makes sense in a deflationary environment wherein money is gaining value, i.e. less money has more purchasing power.
If cash is losing value in the mattress, say, at 25% per year, all other factors equal, I’d gladly pay 5% per year TO the bank to hold that money.
I’m confused... if all things being equal, wouldn’t your loss be 30% if it was in the bank?