Even so, something is fundamentally wrong if markets are signaling, "no, we'd rather you not lend us money to work with", even if the fix lies somewhere else. We should never be at a state where "forgoing the use of money so that others can invest it" is a non-scarce good.
(A charge merely for having physical banknotes on demand can make sense, of course.)
In contrast, there are sane worldstates that correspond to "sour crude provides economic value less than its upkeep cost".
Yes. Which is why this is a stress test. Will the banks survive a financial crisis if the entire world switched over to negative rates?
Well, the Fed wants to know, which is why they're running this doomsday test scenario. The Fed currently expects to raise rates about 2 or 3 more times this year btw... so the scenario probably won't happen, but that doesn't change the fact that lead bankers are preparing for the worst.
In other words, the article is simply stating the following fact: big banks in America are thinking about various financial doomsday scenarios. I don't think that's a bad thing at all.
Fair enough, I assumed the angle was less "hey let's kick the tires" and more "the Fed wants to make interest rates negative", since a lot of economists have been recommending the latter.
(A charge merely for having physical banknotes on demand can make sense, of course.)
In contrast, there are sane worldstates that correspond to "sour crude provides economic value less than its upkeep cost".