At around 15:50 the guys talk about normally when you lend money you do so for a return.
Eg. lend money out say 100, say get 10 back, assume 1 year e.g.: 10 percent. positive rate of 10% or 0.10 however you wish to format that.
This is incredible relevant from a principle perspective in terms of a conceptual framework for systematic stability based on fairness and trust not to mention transparency. I have not listened to the full discussion piece yet. but consider this. You lend money to get a return. Why would you do that?? Is it not because money has value and is considered an asset? As a consequence, with negative interest rates if they lend money not for a return but for a cost are they not saying the money is no longer a asset? Therefore negative interest rates really represents corruption but that is another discussion and just let go through to the keeper for the moment. Lets assume, with negative interest rates money has no value because if you lend it out for a cost it has no value and therefore why hold it?? Therefore why work?? Or certainly one could not work for money unless bewitched because with negative interest rates money has no value or if you do work you work not for money but something else which is not money and not easily exchanged and certainly something where your value can be trapped.
So why would the government do this??? If the Australian government kept interest rates higher and cash more flexible would not every rich person in the world come to Australia as a result?? Is that not a good positive thing for the Australian nation that a billionaire decided to bring his or her wealth to Australia instead of a refugee with nothing???
Does this broadly not suggest the problem is not money but rates and the credit system itself, run by the banksters, which has corrupted its ideals and is looking for further displacement to maintain the fraud and ponzi scheme by replacing money?? Is government not letting wall street shut down main street as a result killing the society to serve the elite???
