And yet . . . IMF's Lagarde Says Negative Rates Have Helped Global Economy
If we had not had those negative rates, we would be in a much worse place today, with inflation probably lower than where it is, with growth probably lower than where we have it,” Lagarde said. “It was a good thing to actually implement those negative rates under the current circumstances.”
Meanwhile, the Business Insider article linked in the OP concludes with this recommendation . . . "the step that comes after zero ought to be fiscal stimulus — government spending — not negative monetary stimulus."
And that's precisely what "The Academics" in general and Ben Bernanke in particular had been arguing for at least 5 years now
. But after that recommendation fell on deaf ears, and with Central Bankers repeatedly undershooting their growth, inflation and unemployment mandates, they've resorted to the second best options available to them. What should they have done instead?