[beefield]

> Only if you think that unbridled growth is an inherently good thing.

This has nothing to do with growth, but with welfare not being created due to otherwise willing seller and buyer not being able to transact due to artificially restricted pricing in the market.

> That's fine but the prescribed solution is to devalue the notional amount people get paid.

I think you confuse inflation and interest rates. Negative interest rate does not devalue money (price of bread says the same over time), but if you happen to have savings, those will of course be deminishing over time. Obviously, almost by definition, it is rich people, not poor people that have savings and bear the pain of negative rates.

[dnautics]

Negative interest rate stimulates borrowing, which is an increase in the money supply, which is inflation. This is precisely the policy mechanism by which it's supposed to work. If you deny that negative interest rates cause inflation, you deny the raison d'être of the negative interest rate.

Rich people are not counting on savings interest to make money. They have investments. For example, land. With negative inflation rate, you encourage mortgage lending, which drives up the price of land, which is great for rich people. Similar careful analysis of what actually rich people do with their money will reveal likewise fashions by which a negative interest rate helps the wealthy.