Rye here trying to push shria law over here. Fuck off undercove sand nigger

... Crap. I've been found out.

I would disagree. In my country the national bank runs negative interest rate on the accounts of the commercial banks. And the government issue bonds with a negative rate too, to discourage foreign investment in them

Where you form? Is that to discourage companies from hording money?

Denmark. Ever since the 70s the national currency has been pegged to the D-mark and later the euro

In order to keep the exchange rate constant the national bank must conduct a constrictive monetary policy

It is primarily to discourage other central banks and pension funds to not buy danish treasury bills.

The side effect is the global capital markets are funding the welfare state here.

In the late 70s early 80s the economy was in shit so the interest rate was 22% in order to keep on par with west germany.

If it's not the banks buy the bonds, who are they selling them to.

The usual suspect that buy bonds, other central banks, pension, funds sovereign wealth fund other uber rich, that have large quantities of cash they need to store inflation safely and don’t want to buy risky bonds like Greece or Italy, and must be tied to the euro

Now that I'm at a computer, and off work now...

To get to the point: In general I'd say that fears and concerns about 'hoarding money' generally stem from a concern for the haves and have nots.

Most people who raise it as a concern are trying to advocate for some means of separating a person from their property.

I'm not one of those 'Taxation is Theft' types

but... it kind of is, in a way.

Imagine if money were substituted for any other goods that can be bought *with* money.

Let's say you farm rice.

You handle your fields entirely on your own. You've purchased grain silos, etc. you've got the means to store as much rice as you like.

Would you argue that, at a certain point, this person's excess rice from farming should be taken from them, based on the fact that they have it and aren't doing anything with it?

Would you argue that they're only entitled to the amount of rice that they need to sustain themselves?

With some here and there for trade?

You can't compere a field of rice that you farm on your own to money. You are not providing a service to aquire that 'wealth' so you aren't taking from the system.

If there is only a certian amount of land to grow the communities wealth then it's a different story.

Ah, so if they own more land than they need

then they might have to give up some of that land.

If this is the case then yes he should only be entitled to his share.

But what if he paid for that land that he grows the rice on?

Then everyoone else was stupid and he is going to pay the price in form a pitch fork up his arse.

Are you justifying that, though?

no.

Currency is a commodity like anything else.

It is either that. He gives it away or takes everyone as a slave.

The only difference is that it's only use is barter for other commodities.

Sometimes the commodity you buy with currency is shares in a company, which in itself is another currency representing a portion of said company's assets and profit.

You can buy other currencies with your own currency.

And the values of those commodities you're exchanging is generally analyzed and agreed upon.

Crypto is largely the same way.

Supply and Demand dictate economics.

Not anything else. not government, even.

Although government has the strings it can pull to manipulate it