It's always strange to see the "orthodox" macro realtionship take precedent over emperical results (see article and figure 1 scatter plot: https://www.stlouisfe

It's always strange to see the "orthodox" macro realtionship take precedent over emperical results (see article and figure 1 scatter plot: https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/july-2016/neo-fisherism-a-radical-idea-or-the-most-obvious-solution-to-the-low-inflation-problem https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/j...). In the short term, the orthodox thinking might be correct and an effective lever for the economy, but long term, it's clear that high interest leads to higher inflation AND less innovation which are bad outcomes IMHO. I agree with your observation for the demand to keep money "safe". We should define what that means. Historically, if you choose to keep wealth in a stable cash with real interest rate (nominal interest rate minus inflation rate) that is positive or zero, it's safe as it retains or grows its buying power. The "or zero" part is important as it allows for a zero interest environment if that also means low inflation. Some may even argue that a reasonable negative interest rate is "safe" and it's just like a "wealth tax" which is the cost of service for keeping large sums of money at the bank. Shouid safety be free (no negative rates)? I would say maybe yes, but safety shouldn't also reward you... and positive interest rates do exactly that.