|WikiProject Economics||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Finance||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
- 1 Needs link to mortgages
- 2 Incomplete definition
- 3 Can someone make a redirect from Interest Rates to this page (note the capital)
- 4 Rewrite
- 5 Discussion of interest.
- 6 Nominal Vs. Real; Finance vs. Economics
- 7 Level of rates
- 8 Switch contents with Interest?
- 9 Intended Meaning Inverted
- 10 Clarity
- 11 Negative interest rates
- 12 Clean up
- 13 Issues with the Introduction
This really needs some reference (or disambig link) to mortgages, but I don't know enough about economics and capitalism to write it myself. — OwenBlacker 20:19, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
This definition of interest rates is incomplete. A more complete definition might include the actual origins of interest rates from a theoretical standpoint (i.e. for what reason does a "price" for the use of money [which is itself simply the current value of a set number of goods or services] exist?). Adam Smith makes several references to the origins of interest rates in his Wealth of Nations which should be mentioned.
Can someone make a redirect from Interest Rates to this page (note the capital)
please MrDark 09:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Done. cannona 21:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I've just done what I think is a decent rewrite of this, which previously had big holes ... please add more stuff, you know you want to! The Land 19:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Discussion of interest.
In classical economics interest was the return to capital. Ricardo stated that the word "capital" could be used to refer to money as well as to 'real' capital (tools, machinery, roads, bridges, factories, etc.) but he also said that the writer should make certain not to 'mix' the two uses.
In the world of fiat money and neoconomics "interest" has become the amount of money paid to a lender of money leaving the return to 'real' capital flapping in the brease. Perhaps the term 'dividends' is to be used as the return to real capital but that word includes rent and graft and whatever as it is "a share or profits" and "profit" is an accounting term and NOT an economic term.
In the text about "the causes of interest" your first statement is dependent on the Austrian (microeconomic) concept of time preference . This theory, as currently employed, is total bunk. (See disscussion section of time preference).
In political economy or macroeconomics banks pay a fee to savings and call it "interest" and that is to adjust for actual inflation. As banks do not lend the money of depositors this payment to a saver is also a misnomer. The amounts paid to a lender to reward him for risk would be called "interest" in the classical sense only if the loan is not backed by real capital (e.g. the car does not actually belong to you until it is paid for. until then in belongs to the bank -- repossessed?). So the amount paid to a bank is best described as a finance charge which includes the accounting costs, costs of repossession and resale, and other clarical fees.
Money (especially fiat money) is not capital. All payments for the use of money over and above a finance charge are simply economic rent. Banks create money from thin air every day. We need not borrow yours:) http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/credit.php --126.96.36.199 14:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- My edits were describing interest as currently understood by economists, however the point of view you describe is also worth inclusion. The Land 14:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Nominal Vs. Real; Finance vs. Economics
Unless I am much mistaken, in financial math, real and nominal interest rates refer to something completely different than the nom/real rates discussed in this article. Any ideas on how this can be differentiated? - cannona 21:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm wondering why the formula used for converting nominal interest rates to real rates is not simplified to r=(i-m)/(1+m), with i being the nominal interest rate, r being the real interst rate, and m being the expected inflation rate. The current formula is more confusing. Thoughts? --Johnsassar (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Level of rates
Great theoretical treatment of rates. To most though interest rates mean what they can earn on their savings or pay on their debt especially in these increasingly difficult times. Found existing external links unsatisfactory in this regard. Have therefore added link to daily changing offshore rates page - other links seem to relate only to US.
What do you people think of a major switch of content between these two links? The only content on compounding is there, not here. And piles of the discussion stuff there are duplicates of stuff here. A lot of the stuff here is not about rates at all. -- Retail Investor 19:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Intended Meaning Inverted
In the section 'Liquidity' there is a statement A 10-year loan, for instance, is very liquid compared to a 1-year loan. but I think this should be the opposite way around - surely the 1 year loan is more liquid. Of course it depends whether you're the lender or borrower. In the context of the article at this point it seems to be a discussion about the motivation for interest rates being determined by the views of the lender, so I'd take it to be the lender whose point of view is being taken. I don't feel confident enough to make the edit since I'm not an expert in this area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cefn (talk • contribs) 20:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
This article does not adequately explain how interest rates affect investment, money supply and unemployment. Can someone please improve the article on this front? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Negative interest rates
If a central bank's deposit rate is below 0, then banks would exchange their reserves at the central bank for cash if storing the cash is cheaper than "receiving" the interest. So how does the Sveriges Riksbank dictate how much cash a bank may hold? And why can't it be circumvented e. g. by setting up a company which receives loans at a very low rates and then stores the cash? MMMMM742 (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think the article is wrong, it says "This negative interest rate is possible because Swedish banks, as regulated companies, must hold these reserves with the central bank – they do not have the option of holding cash.". This is not it. Riksbank WANT TO DISCOURAGE commercial banks to park money with them over night, and instead make them lend it to other commercial banks, something they didn't want to do because of bank failure risk (STIBOR had a gigantic spread). So they wanted to put a penalty for this, to make credit flow again and not all of it ending up at the Riksbank. Kricke (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- I dunno how this talk thing works, but this article is seriously biased towards the theory that the Great Recession was caused by low interest rates (which is a seriously contentious claim to make - even if it is right it shouldn't be here). Some organization is manipulating this information for some end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Issues with the Introduction
The introduction had the following in it, which I have since removed:
This happened in Japan in the late 1980s and early 1990s, resulting in large unpaid debts to the Japanese banks and the bankruptcy of these banks and causing stagflation in the Japanese economy (Japan being the world's second largest economy at the time), with exports becoming the last pillar for the growth of the Japanese economy throughout the rest of the 1990s and early 2000s. The same scenario resulted from the United States' lowering of interest rate since the late 1990s to the present (see 2007–2012 global financial crisis), substantially by the decision of the Federal Reserve System. Under Margaret Thatcher, the United Kingdom's economy maintained stable growth by not allowing the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.
This didn't seem to belong in the introduction, for a couple of reasons. First, it is far too specific and detailed for the intro section, and belongs in the body of the article if it belongs anywhere, which leads to my second point; these claims are controversial. The causes of the events referenced in the Japanese, US, and British economies are still a topic of debate, are nuanced, are complex, and therefore broad claims about them do not belong in the intro of an encylopedia article on interest rates. Anyone who is looking for an introduction - a basic understanding, without reading the whole article, of what the term "interest rate" means - is served poorly (and is likely to be confused by) having stuff like this in the introduction.
It also wasn't properly cited, but that's not the central reason why it didn't belong in the intro.