Talk:Interest rate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Economics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


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)[edit]

please MrDark 09:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. cannona 21:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite[edit]

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.[edit]

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

--208.54.14.25 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[edit]

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[edit]

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.


Switch contents with Interest?[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 20:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarity[edit]

This article does not adequately explain how interest rates affect investment, money supply and unemployment. Can someone please improve the article on this front? 121.241.113.194 (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Negative interest rates[edit]

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)
Is this information about the negative interest rate even accurate? The information on this article suggests it was a policy that wasn't implemented, and I can't find any sources which corroborate. Fips (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Clean up[edit]

Is anyone going to clean up this article. I'm going to start when I can find time between my MBA at Harvard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.114.248 (talk) 23:50, 4 November 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 31.49.91.202 (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)