Live data from Hacker News

Denmark's Jyske Bank lowers its negative rates on deposits

reuters.com

91–100 of 113 posts

Re: Denmark's Jyske Bank lowers its negative rates on deposits

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The argument that the central banks couldn't fight inflation by raising rates is sort of undermined by the fact that central banks have raised rates in very recent history and there was no catastrophe, in 2011 the ECB raised rates 1/2% and all the Eurozone got was a stunted recovery. They raised them very briefly for a couple of months. And half a percent? That's basically background noise. In the past, to fight in…

Setting economic policy based on fighting 1970's inflation battles instead of accepting the evidence that the US economy is finally near or at full employment by sustaining a low interest rate environment contrary to evidence and experience. Full employment is good for workers and less-good for asset owners. Governments can borrow money to build infrastructure that make people's lives better, I don't know how you can…

> Setting economic policy based on fighting 1970's inflation battles instead of accepting the evidence that the US economy is finally near or at full employment by sustaining a low interest rate environment contrary to evidence and experience. Full employment is good for workers and less-good for asset owners.

You can always point to numbers that are supposedly good (such as questionable government-issued employment statistics) and I can always point to numbers that are bad (the PMI, the Russell 2000, the unprecedented levels of sovereign and individual debt).

If the economy really was that great now for people on main street, why is Trump losing approval among the people that voted for him to fix this exact issue?

> Governments can borrow money to build infrastructure that make people's lives better, I don't know how you can dispute that this policy option exists or say that it "doesn't work that way" when you know, governments do that stuff all the time. When in doubt, and you have low interest rates, build a sewage treatment plant!

I'm not against emergency measures by any means, but the tendency with governments is to make the emergency measure of today the status quo of tomorrow. This idea that you can spend yourself wealthy at the national level is just as flawed as the idea of trickle-down-economics.

Sure, in the short term, debt-financed government programs can stimulate the economy, but that debt has to be paid off. You have moved demand from the future into the present. It will be missing from the future, because money spent on debt service cannot be spent on anything else. That is unless you don't pay off the debt, or you erase it through inflation, in which case that is still money missing from someone's pocket, and it's not just foreign pockets - most US debt is internal. It's also not going to be the rich guys' pockets, because they saw it all coming and bought up all the hard assets already.

Re: Denmark's Jyske Bank lowers its negative rates on deposits

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Add Sweden as well, same story here. The national bank (Riksbanken) can not increase interest rates because it would have disastrous consequences for the large majority of over-extended loan takers. The low interest rates in their turn lead to the value of the Swedish currency plummeting. No matter what they do, a 'correction' is unavoidable - either the Swedish crown goes to junk status or the number of foreclosures…

If you have a fixed rate loan, inflation is amazing. It is like free money. Inflation: bails out debtors, punishes savers Deflation: punishes debtors, rewards savers

Fixed rate loans are only 5 year max in Canada, so yes its great for 5 years but after that have to refinance at the new market rate.

Re: Denmark's Jyske Bank lowers its negative rates on deposits

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When people borrow money for a house, they only consider the monthly payments for the mortgage and not the absolute amount of money they are borrowing. That is how borrowing works. Otherwise the lender would not make a profit. >It creates too much debt in society and generally makes the economy more fragile than it has to be. and yet the post-2009 economic expansion is the longest ever, and this is in spite of all t…

Making an investment asset out of a requirement to survive is capitalist insanity. The housing market crashes every 10-20 years, while most mortgages are 30 years, this means that many people stand to lose their entire "investment", but oh wait, its their home , not their fucking Robinhood account. Saying that things are going well, therefore we are making good decisions is a terrible argument.

The loss or gain is not realized until the home owner sells the house. So just don’t sell during the crash.

Re: Denmark's Jyske Bank lowers its negative rates on deposits

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO this is the end game. Scenario 1: If interest rates go up significantly this would bankrupt entire nations such as Italy, France and Greece (again) + runaway deflation. Conclusion: interest rates cannot and will not go up. This would be political suicide. Also deflation is the number 1 enemy of central banks and the economy in general. Scenario 2: Lowering interest rates causes rich people, businesses and governm…

> Also deflation is the number 1 enemy of central banks and the economy in general. I've always thought this was a weird claim, put this simply. Consumer electronics and computers have been deflationary for ever: You can always get a better TV, phone, or computer for less money if you are willing to wait for a year. Yet people can't stop buying them. Because they want them enough. Deflation should only hurt businesse…

> I've never understood this angle either. Buying stuff doesn't make stuff appear out of thin air. Buying stuff means buying stuff from the people who already have it, which for valuable things like housing is already the rich. The difference between buying an apartment and renting it is whether I give the rich person 30 years' worth of rent right now in a lump some or slowly over time. I don't see how I "win" against the rich person by giving them my money earlier.

There are 2 ways to make a profit on a property investment:

1. Sell at a higher price in the future which offsets all of the costs of holding the property (rented out or not).

2. Rent out at a higher monthly price than whatever the monthly cost is (cost spread out over whatever your investment horizon is), right now.

Number 2 means (assuming the house was purchased on credit, which at negative interest rates it should always be as much as possible) that you as the renter(s) are paying back the owners credit he took out for the house, the house's maintenance, the owner's house insurance and taxes and all other costs + THE APPRECIATION IN VALUE OF THE HOUSE FOR THE TIME YOU RENT (higher housing prices = higher monthly rent) + a profit.

When you buy a house, you're not giving the owner 30 years worth of rent. You're giving the owner the value of the house, which is way less than the accumulated rent would be over 30 years.

Buying a house (on credit) is only ever a net loss if the house's value goes down significantly for whatever reason. Reasons can be: uninsured destruction (war, fire, bad renters) or deflation (due to oversupply of houses such as is the case in Japan right now or due to the overall economy going bad).

In other words: assuming a healthy economy, buying a property as an investment (with a 15 - 30 year investment horizon to be able to spread all initial costs over a longer period of time) is ALWAYS a win assuming you can find renters. In the current market (at least in most cities of Western Europe) you will always find renters, because a significant part of the population who would like to buy a house simply can't get the credit they need to buy a house close to where their employment is. Due to the housing prices being too inflated relative to average income from employment.

Summary: housing prices higher than the credit people can afford = people can't get credit to buy a house = lots of renters on the market (people rent instead) = makes it interesting to own houses to rent out for profit = housing prices higher = poor people can't get credit to buy a house = lots of renters on the market and so on.

See what's happening? Those who can afford real estate investments start receiving an ever larger portion of the income of people who can't afford real estate investments. AKA: the poor and middle class get poorer and the rich get richer.

Re: Denmark's Jyske Bank lowers its negative rates on deposits

#95
post #85
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the main reason behind the better economic situation in the 1871-1914 period was not a deflationary economy, but the steady increase in factory output -- the industrialization was on its height -- and medical knowledge -- proper sanitation, proper medical procedures, hygiene. Add to that the benefits Europe and the US reaped from colonial imperialism: the "masses" gained access to commodities like sugar, tea,…

Couldn't you use the same argument against inflation as well? That the improved life and economic growth in the 20th and 21th centuries have been driven by technological advances, and not by the inflationary economy?

Yes and no.

Yes, technological advances have improved life and have allowed economic growth.

No. Society as it is currently could not have been financed by those things alone. Massive loans that cannot and will not ever be paid back cannot exist without an inflationary economy (powered by fiat currency with no limit to currency supply and fractional reserve banking). And those types of loans and the inflationary economy have been crucial for the US/The West to attain and maintain their world domination politically, economically and militarily. That's where the term "military industrial complex" comes from.

Nixon moved away from the gold standard for a reason: the US was unable to afford its wars (Vietnam at the time) and keep its military happy and in check without an inflationary economy.

Inflationary economy = massive free buying power out of thin air for whoever controls the world currency, until they control the world currency no more and an empire falls.

Again: I'm no expert at all, this is just my limited understanding.

Re: Denmark's Jyske Bank lowers its negative rates on deposits

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also deflation is the number 1 enemy of central banks and the economy in general. I've always thought this was a weird claim, put this simply. Consumer electronics and computers have been deflationary for ever: You can always get a better TV, phone, or computer for less money if you are willing to wait for a year. Yet people can't stop buying them. Because they want them enough. Deflation should only hurt businesse…

> I've never understood this angle either. Buying stuff doesn't make stuff appear out of thin air. Buying stuff means buying stuff from the people who already have it, which for valuable things like housing is already the rich. The difference between buying an apartment and renting it is whether I give the rich person 30 years' worth of rent right now in a lump some or slowly over time. I don't see how I "win" agains…

> AKA: the poor and middle class get poorer and the rich get richer.

Yes, that's what I said. If the rich control apartments, they can always arrange to get richer. I cannot cheat them out of that.

Re: Denmark's Jyske Bank lowers its negative rates on deposits

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO this is the end game. Scenario 1: If interest rates go up significantly this would bankrupt entire nations such as Italy, France and Greece (again) + runaway deflation. Conclusion: interest rates cannot and will not go up. This would be political suicide. Also deflation is the number 1 enemy of central banks and the economy in general. Scenario 2: Lowering interest rates causes rich people, businesses and governm…

bboygravity: I agree with everything you just said except that deflation is bad for the economy in general. It doesn't have to be. The Guilded Age (Belle Epoque in Europe), 1871-1914 had several percentages of deflation each year and this was a period where a massive number of people went from being poor farmers to middle class city dwellers and the period saw a massive growth in productivity. Deflation will destabil…

> Deflation will destabilize the economy if there is massive borrowing, and since most Western government owe about 100 % of GDP, they will prevent deflation for the very reasons you describe. But the middle class should embrace deflation and so should the general economy as it encourages savings which encourages investments which is where the growth in productivity comes from.

You're right. Deflation is not always a bad thing. But runaway deflation is. And runaway deflation is especially likely when there is no increased productivity (like their was in the period you mention) combined with massive debts (which didn't exist in the period you mention, because there was not fractional reserve banking like we have now and value of currencies where intrinsically backed by scarcity of gold).

A little deflation shouldn't be bad for a healthy economy with "sound money", but as you describe yourself: that's not what we're working with here.

It's not just governments who have massive amounts of debt. It's also large businesses and most real estate owners. The middle class should definitely not embrace deflation right now, because deflation could very quickly spiral into runaway deflation.

Runaway deflation = lower wages, lower housing prices, less government budget (less absolute taxes coming in). Less government budget = greater inequality, worse educational quality, leading to decrease in productivity, more crime, more corruption, more waste of resources and aside from government issues: less investments by companies, lower stock market prices, insufficient pension fund reserves due to investments going down (= lower pensions), people losing their house (lower wage = some people can't afford payments on house credit and are foreclosed), housing prices going down more because of foreclosures and bad economy, people increasingly start selling their house at an increasing loss, housing prices go down further, more people start losing and so on.

End result: Japan. Or perhaps worse: the 1930's crash (a prime example of runaway deflation), subsequent poverty, social unrest and wars.

I feel this is not a great explanation though, perhaps someone else can do better.

Re: Denmark's Jyske Bank lowers its negative rates on deposits

#98
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't you use the same argument against inflation as well? That the improved life and economic growth in the 20th and 21th centuries have been driven by technological advances, and not by the inflationary economy?

Yes and no. Yes, technological advances have improved life and have allowed economic growth. No. Society as it is currently could not have been financed by those things alone. Massive loans that cannot and will not ever be paid back cannot exist without an inflationary economy (powered by fiat currency with no limit to currency supply and fractional reserve banking). And those types of loans and the inflationary econ…

That is a good point, particularly your ending that it's for those who control the world currency... Until they fail.

But did that really improve the lives for people globally? Couldn't it be seen as a global redistribution of wealth, from countries who used the USD to the U.S? If you were cynical you might even say the U.S. robbed the other countries.

I wouldn't be so sure to conclude that inflation has allowed economic growth from your example, but more a redistribution of one.

Re: Denmark's Jyske Bank lowers its negative rates on deposits

#99
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a fixed rate loan, inflation is amazing. It is like free money. Inflation: bails out debtors, punishes savers Deflation: punishes debtors, rewards savers

Fixed rate loans are only 5 year max in Canada, so yes its great for 5 years but after that have to refinance at the new market rate.

Yes, good point. The standard 30 year fixed loan in the US is not common internationally.

Re: Denmark's Jyske Bank lowers its negative rates on deposits

#100
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Japan has close to zero immigration where Europe has a large migration from countries with a much higher birth rate. For Japan this implies that their population will shrink while staying ethnically homogeneous while the European population is likely to increase and diversify. Europe will see more ethno-religiously motivated conflict, Japan will suffer from having a decreasing work force which needs to take care of a…

Which neighboring country could mount a huge amphibious assault against a developed island nation with still 100+ million people? The only threat is China and China's aging too...

China, Russia and possibly Korea (which army is far larger than Japan's) come to mind. While Japan still does have 100+ million people the population is going to shrink and those who live there are getting older and older. The low birth rate will make it hard for Japan to maintain a standing army, the ageing population also makes it harder to maintain a reserve force.
Post reply on HN