<p>I will give a rather oversimplified finance side version (macroeconomic version requires a lot of details).</p>
<p>Generally new money is injected in the economy by the central bank by buying government bonds from the market. These bonds can be assumed to have a fixed coupon payment. The price of the bond in the secondary market is dynamic such that annual coupon payment per year (<span class="math-container">$c$</span>) divided by current market price (<span class="math-container">$p_t$</span>), gives the interest rate (<span class="math-container">$i_t$</span>). Clearly, as <span class="math-container">$p_t$</span> increases, <span class="math-container">$i_t$</span> decreases and vice versa.</p>
<p>To inject more money, the central bank starts buying these bonds which pushes their price up and consequently decreases the rate of return on the bonds.</p>
<p>How does this affect other interest rates? Well all investment avenues are imperfect substitutes. So as rate of return on one decreases, so does that of others. Portfolio managers would divert investment to other asset classes and as their demand goes up, returns fall until a new equilibrium is established in which returns on most (if not all) assets are lower.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-19T10:25:39.753Z
+1, though "Generally new money ..." looks to me like quantitative easing.  Another route when interest rates are not absurdly low is that central banks can encourage the private creation of new money by reducing interest rates so new private borrowing is more attractive: the causal link between interest rates and money is in a sense then reversed.  The central bank could often change interest rates by announcement, and would only have to undertake financial operations if the market failed to respond
Henry
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-19T10:33:50.083Z
@Henry: That's an important point! If I understand correctly, if central bank decreases interest rates (through some policy instrument), speculative demand for money comes down which allows more (of the hoarded) money to come into circulation in the economy - effectively increasing money supply. Does this sound correct?
Dayne
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-19T22:06:55.807Z
This is a good answer but I'd like to add one thing: there is no necessary connection between changes in the money supply and (real) interest rates. The fact that new money tends to lower interest rates is merely a feature of the way central banks change the money supply in practice. But if the central bank printed a load of money and gave it to people who preferred to consume rather than save, the short-term result would be a rise in interest rates.
UtilityMaximiser
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-20T03:37:53.320Z
@UtilityMaximiser: which is exactly why I have mentioned that *macroeconomic version* requires a lot of details.
Dayne
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-20T11:09:28.063Z
The interest rate and money supply link is fundamental and does not necessarily rely on bond markets or the existence of any central bank policies - they are linked also in pre-central bank times, without any bonds involved, for example in historical precious-metal based economies any major changes to the supply of (for example) silver had an appropriate effect on interest rates.
Peteris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-19T10:14:44.183Z
2020-11-19T10:14:44.183Z
Dayne
<p>Here’s my Average Joe, fewest words, attempt: the more of a good circulating in the market, the less scarce is that good, and the lower the cost becomes. If money is the good, interest is the cost of borrowing.</p>
<p>When there’s not that much money on the market, in order for me to lend it to you, I have to re-allocate that money from a different place where it is being used (savings, investments, whatever).  You, in turn, promise to pay me a bit more to convince me to do so (higher interest). As there’s not much money on the market being lent to people, you don’t have as many options so you’re willing to take on the higher costs.</p>
<p>When the money supply suddenly goes up, I can keep all my savings and investments where they are and still lend to you (but presumably, everyone else is also doing that) so to convince you to borrow from me, the rate I charge you has to goes down.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-19T21:34:30.313Z
2020-11-19T21:34:30.313Z
anguyen1210
<p>Let's look at it this way friends..we have two simultaneous forces trying to level with each other, I think equilibrium is the correct term.</p>
<p>Supplier have goods, demand money, opposite for consumers. Demand is changed first, supply adjusts after, but the good of the supplier, is not tge good of the buyer, amiright? Teyo.</p>
<p>As the quantity of money increases, it has to level with the value of goods on the market, I mean hey what else are dollar bills good for ya know. So the money itself can only be as valuable as the goods for sale. It has no intrinsic value or sentimental value or any of that stuff,so it's value per 1$ decreases then in response prices of goods increase. This is assuming other things being equal of course.</p>
<p>One can almost think of money as a commodity Luke steel or stock or whatever.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-21T01:09:56.803Z
2024-12-21T01:09:56.803Z
Tommy Girl
<p>It should go up.  More money means more  inflation.  Inflation requires higher interest  rates to attract depositors who would otherwise spend the money before it lost more value.</p>
<p>There were times when people took any money they got and immediately went to spend it before it lost more value.  Worst cases they had to use wheelbarrows to haul it to the store.  Or they printed trillion dollar notes like zimbabwe did.    So the velocity of money would go up and the interest rates would be sky high.</p>
<p>For you personally the money supply hurts  you when it goes up as your money is worth less due to the law of supply and demand.  With more money trying to buy same amount of goods prices will go  up.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-19T19:12:20.723Z
2020-11-19T19:12:20.723Z
george soros
<p>On most fundamental level it is because interest rate is price for money. In the same way as price of milk goes down when supply of milk increases (ceteris paribus) price of money goes down when supply of money increases. For example, consider the following diagram from Blanchard et al. Macroeconomics below. You have supply of money (by central bank) and then you have demand for money by people. Interest rate ensures that demand for money = supply of money. If supply increases (shift to the right) interest rate has to decrease otherwise people would not be willing to get and hold that additional money.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/dQFsg.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/dQFsg.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-19T22:01:43.753Z
"Price of X" surely means "how many dollars can be exchanged for X," so to call the interest rate the price of money is an abuse of language. The price of 1 dollar is 1 dollar. Also, viewing the interest rate as the price of money fails to explain the time element: why is there more interest over a longer time period than a shorter time period, if the amount borrowed is the same. In a barter economy interest rates are still present and related to the rate of time discount.
UtilityMaximiser
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-19T22:12:20.710Z
@UtilityMaximiser I do not think it is an abuse of terminology. Mankiw in his macroeconomics also calls interest rate price - on p65 he literary says: "the interest rate is the price that has the crucial role
of equilibrating supply and demand" - that is direct quote from a leading textbook from one of the most cited macroeconomists of our time so I do not think the comparison is wrong. Also, there is more interest over long time than in short time because money in present have higher value than money tomorrow that is classic time value of money problem. Lastly, of course this answer is gross
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-19T22:13:13.520Z
oversimplification - but the OP was asking for explanation in simple layman's terms - this is classic undergraduate explanation of interest rate as you can see in Mankiw or even Blanchard et al. and other undergraduate textbooks. The same way as you cannot make omelet without breaking some eggs you cant provide simple explanation without loosing some nuance, but on a fundamental level this is not wrong explanation
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-19T22:23:30.930Z
@UtilityMaximiser in addition this simply cannot be correct: "Price of X" surely means "how many dollars can be exchanged for X,". Most problems in microeconomics do not even have money in them yet prices exists in those models. Prices exist in barter economies as well. Under such restrictive definition of price that would be impossible.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-20T11:05:33.297Z
@UtilityMaximiser perhaps it could be technically more accurate to say not "the price of money" but "the price of borrowed money", but in common terms we omit this implicit assumption that we're talking about lending (as opposed to e.g. forex) for the sake of brevity. The price of 1 dollar is 1 dollar, but the market price price to rent 1 dollar for a year can be variable, of course.
Peteris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-20T13:00:01.037Z
You two are having a silly argument over semantics. Clearly the _price of money_ is tautological (the price of \$1 is \$1) but the expression is not used literally. A more precise term for interest rate would be _cost of borrowing money_, but this isn't so obviously connected to the supply/demand theory. Calling it the _price of money_ is a useful shorthand.
Oscar Bravo
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-20T13:38:35.093Z
The value of money is surely related to the goods and services it can buy, so the "price of money" would be the reciprocal of the price level. The reason I dislike referring to interest rates as the "price of money" is it quickly leads to paradoxes. First paradox: how is it that general equilibrium models with no money nevertheless have interest rates. Second paradox: if the central bank creates new money and gives it to people who prefer to consume the new money rather than save it, the effect will be a rise in interest rates. This makes no sense if interest is viewed as the price of money.
UtilityMaximiser
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-20T13:49:08.930Z
@UtilityMaximiser I suppose more proper term would be ‘price for loanable funds’ - term which would work in model with money or without. However, again this is commonly used shorthand (as proven by the references to leading textbooks) - also I agree it could use more nuance. It is the same as when some undergraduate textbooks use ‘competitive’ as a shorthand for *perfectly* competitive. However, on second point I disagree because any partial eq analysis is under ceteris paribus condition. The saving/consumption preference would move money demand so that would not be paradox per se
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-19T10:18:57.593Z
2020-11-19T10:18:57.593Z
1muflon1
<p>If money supply increases, then I will have more money in my pocket to spend more. I imagine that prices will also increase over time to adjust to there being more money in circulation. Is it because that now, fewer people want to save because they have so much money to spend that the interest rate in general decreases when the money supply increases? Can someone explain it to me from an average Joe perspective, as in how does the increase of the money supply affects me personally and why the interest rate would decrease?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-29T11:58:26.880Z
Ultimately you adjust your monetary polices to increase or decrease quantity of goods demanded. If you want to increase money supply -> This would lower IR which makes people hold their money in their pocket instead of putting in bank so as to spur spending on goods.
Wei chuen
<macroeconomics><microeconomics>
Why does increasing the money supply decrease the interest rate in layman's terms?
dev_el
# Why does increasing the money supply decrease the interest rate in layman's terms?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-11-19)

If money supply increases, then I will have more money in my pocket to spend more. I imagine that prices will also increase over time to adjust to there being more money in circulation. Is it because that now, fewer people want to save because they have so much money to spend that the interest rate in general decreases when the money supply increases? Can someone explain it to me from an average Joe perspective, as in how does the increase of the money supply affects me personally and why the interest rate would decrease?

**Tags:** macroeconomics, microeconomics

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Ultimately you adjust your monetary polices to increase or decrease quantity of goods demanded. If you want to increase money supply -> This would lower IR which makes people hold their money in their pocket instead of putting in bank so as to spur spending on goods.  

---

## 5 answers

### Answer by username_9 on 2020-11-19. Score: 11 | Accepted answer

On most fundamental level it is because interest rate is price for money. In the same way as price of milk goes down when supply of milk increases (ceteris paribus) price of money goes down when supply of money increases. For example, consider the following diagram from Blanchard et al. Macroeconomics below. You have supply of money (by central bank) and then you have demand for money by people. Interest rate ensures that demand for money = supply of money. If supply increases (shift to the right) interest rate has to decrease otherwise people would not be willing to get and hold that additional money.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/dQFsg.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/dQFsg.png)

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: "Price of X" surely means "how many dollars can be exchanged for X," so to call the interest rate the price of money is an abuse of language. The price of 1 dollar is 1 dollar. Also, viewing the interest rate as the price of money fails to explain the time element: why is there more interest over a longer time period than a shorter time period, if the amount borrowed is the same. In a barter economy interest rates are still present and related to the rate of time discount.  
> **username_9**: @username_4 I do not think it is an abuse of terminology. Mankiw in his macroeconomics also calls interest rate price - on p65 he literary says: "the interest rate is the price that has the crucial role of equilibrating supply and demand" - that is direct quote from a leading textbook from one of the most cited macroeconomists of our time so I do not think the comparison is wrong. Also, there is more interest over long time than in short time because money in present have higher value than money tomorrow that is classic time value of money problem. Lastly, of course this answer is gross  
> **username_9**: oversimplification - but the OP was asking for explanation in simple layman's terms - this is classic undergraduate explanation of interest rate as you can see in Mankiw or even Blanchard et al. and other undergraduate textbooks. The same way as you cannot make omelet without breaking some eggs you cant provide simple explanation without loosing some nuance, but on a fundamental level this is not wrong explanation  
> **username_9**: @username_4 in addition this simply cannot be correct: "Price of X" surely means "how many dollars can be exchanged for X,". Most problems in microeconomics do not even have money in them yet prices exists in those models. Prices exist in barter economies as well. Under such restrictive definition of price that would be impossible.  
> **username_5**: @username_4 perhaps it could be technically more accurate to say not "the price of money" but "the price of borrowed money", but in common terms we omit this implicit assumption that we're talking about lending (as opposed to e.g. forex) for the sake of brevity. The price of 1 dollar is 1 dollar, but the market price price to rent 1 dollar for a year can be variable, of course.  
> **username_10**: You two are having a silly argument over semantics. Clearly the _price of money_ is tautological (the price of \$1 is \$1) but the expression is not used literally. A more precise term for interest rate would be _cost of borrowing money_, but this isn't so obviously connected to the supply/demand theory. Calling it the _price of money_ is a useful shorthand.  
> **username_4**: The value of money is surely related to the goods and services it can buy, so the "price of money" would be the reciprocal of the price level. The reason I dislike referring to interest rates as the "price of money" is it quickly leads to paradoxes. First paradox: how is it that general equilibrium models with no money nevertheless have interest rates. Second paradox: if the central bank creates new money and gives it to people who prefer to consume the new money rather than save it, the effect will be a rise in interest rates. This makes no sense if interest is viewed as the price of money.  
> **username_9**: @username_4 I suppose more proper term would be ‘price for loanable funds’ - term which would work in model with money or without. However, again this is commonly used shorthand (as proven by the references to leading textbooks) - also I agree it could use more nuance. It is the same as when some undergraduate textbooks use ‘competitive’ as a shorthand for *perfectly* competitive. However, on second point I disagree because any partial eq analysis is under ceteris paribus condition. The saving/consumption preference would move money demand so that would not be paradox per se  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2020-11-19. Score: 5

I will give a rather oversimplified finance side version (macroeconomic version requires a lot of details).

Generally new money is injected in the economy by the central bank by buying government bonds from the market. These bonds can be assumed to have a fixed coupon payment. The price of the bond in the secondary market is dynamic such that annual coupon payment per year ($c$) divided by current market price ($p\_t$), gives the interest rate ($i\_t$). Clearly, as $p\_t$ increases, $i\_t$ decreases and vice versa.

To inject more money, the central bank starts buying these bonds which pushes their price up and consequently decreases the rate of return on the bonds.

How does this affect other interest rates? Well all investment avenues are imperfect substitutes. So as rate of return on one decreases, so does that of others. Portfolio managers would divert investment to other asset classes and as their demand goes up, returns fall until a new equilibrium is established in which returns on most (if not all) assets are lower.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: +1, though "Generally new money ..." looks to me like quantitative easing.  Another route when interest rates are not absurdly low is that central banks can encourage the private creation of new money by reducing interest rates so new private borrowing is more attractive: the causal link between interest rates and money is in a sense then reversed.  The central bank could often change interest rates by announcement, and would only have to undertake financial operations if the market failed to respond  
> **username_2**: @username_3: That's an important point! If I understand correctly, if central bank decreases interest rates (through some policy instrument), speculative demand for money comes down which allows more (of the hoarded) money to come into circulation in the economy - effectively increasing money supply. Does this sound correct?  
> **username_4**: This is a good answer but I'd like to add one thing: there is no necessary connection between changes in the money supply and (real) interest rates. The fact that new money tends to lower interest rates is merely a feature of the way central banks change the money supply in practice. But if the central bank printed a load of money and gave it to people who preferred to consume rather than save, the short-term result would be a rise in interest rates.  
> **username_2**: @username_4: which is exactly why I have mentioned that *macroeconomic version* requires a lot of details.  
> **username_5**: The interest rate and money supply link is fundamental and does not necessarily rely on bond markets or the existence of any central bank policies - they are linked also in pre-central bank times, without any bonds involved, for example in historical precious-metal based economies any major changes to the supply of (for example) silver had an appropriate effect on interest rates.  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2020-11-19. Score: 2

Here’s my Average Joe, fewest words, attempt: the more of a good circulating in the market, the less scarce is that good, and the lower the cost becomes. If money is the good, interest is the cost of borrowing.

When there’s not that much money on the market, in order for me to lend it to you, I have to re-allocate that money from a different place where it is being used (savings, investments, whatever). You, in turn, promise to pay me a bit more to convince me to do so (higher interest). As there’s not much money on the market being lent to people, you don’t have as many options so you’re willing to take on the higher costs.

When the money supply suddenly goes up, I can keep all my savings and investments where they are and still lend to you (but presumably, everyone else is also doing that) so to convince you to borrow from me, the rate I charge you has to goes down.


---

### Answer by username_7 on 2024-12-21. Score: 0

Let's look at it this way friends..we have two simultaneous forces trying to level with each other, I think equilibrium is the correct term.

Supplier have goods, demand money, opposite for consumers. Demand is changed first, supply adjusts after, but the good of the supplier, is not tge good of the buyer, amiright? Teyo.

As the quantity of money increases, it has to level with the value of goods on the market, I mean hey what else are dollar bills good for ya know. So the money itself can only be as valuable as the goods for sale. It has no intrinsic value or sentimental value or any of that stuff,so it's value per 1$ decreases then in response prices of goods increase. This is assuming other things being equal of course.

One can almost think of money as a commodity Luke steel or stock or whatever.


---

### Answer by username_8 on 2020-11-19. Score: -3

It should go up. More money means more inflation. Inflation requires higher interest rates to attract depositors who would otherwise spend the money before it lost more value.

There were times when people took any money they got and immediately went to spend it before it lost more value. Worst cases they had to use wheelbarrows to haul it to the store. Or they printed trillion dollar notes like zimbabwe did. So the velocity of money would go up and the interest rates would be sky high.

For you personally the money supply hurts you when it goes up as your money is worth less due to the law of supply and demand. With more money trying to buy same amount of goods prices will go up.


---

