Property, Interest, and Money: Is Heinsohn and Steiger's Property Premium a Determinant of Interest?

Eric Hillebrand

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2604.24489

Property, Interest, and Money: Is Heinsohn and Steiger's Property Premium a Determinant of Interest?

Eric Hillebrand

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Heinsohn and Steiger's "Eigentum, Zins und Geld" (1996) proposes the property premium as the foundational determinant of interest, replacing time preference. This paper examines whether the replacement succeeds. It does not. The two arguments against time preference, the savings-inelasticity claim after Hahn and the portfolio-shift claim after Keynes, both fail on standard microeconomic grounds. With time preference intact, the property premium sits within the standard decomposition of the interest rate. In ordinary collateralized credit it coincides with the risk premium. Only when the lender is a money-issuing bank with a real redemption obligation does a third term enter the decomposition that standard asset-pricing theory does not articulate. That third term is Heinsohn and Steiger's genuine contribution. The paper discusses its apparent disappearance or disguised operation after 2008, and the circularity of a property anchor measured in money.

Explore related subjects

econ.GN q-fin.EC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Eric Hillebrand. 2026-05-05. Property, Interest, and Money: Is Heinsohn and Steiger's Property Premium a Determinant of Interest?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.24489

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Computing Endogenous Transformations in Processing Networks: A Dynamic Calibration Approach

Understanding how supply chains endogenously transform requires a parametric model of processing networks with non-neutral substitution elasticities. While the Cascaded CES production function provides a rigorous framework, dynamically calibrating its structural parameters from time-series data constitutes a highly non-convex inverse optimization problem. Since enforcing strict microeconomic concavity renders standard monolithic approaches computationally intractable, we propose a novel structure-exploiting algorithm to bypass this limitation. By leveraging the physical upstreamness topology of the network, our hybrid heuristic effectively breaks the curse of dimensionality inherent in economywide processing networks. Applying this framework to U.S. time-series data, we provide a scalable computational engine to fully endogenize complex supply-chain transformations, ultimately uncovering the elastic origins of asymmetric macroeconomic tail risks.

econ.GN↗

arXiv2026

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN↗

arXiv2026

Screening Out the Needy: The Effects of SNAP Work Requirements

We examine the effectiveness of work requirements as a screening device in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Work requirements for "able-bodied adults without dependents" were suspended after the Great Recession and gradually reinstated across counties and states in the 2010s. Using linked administrative SNAP and employment data from five states and a triple-differences design, we find that work requirements reduce SNAP participation by seven percent without increasing labor supply and disproportionately screen out low-income individuals. We develop a welfare framework to interpret these results and find that the social costs of work requirements exceed budget savings.

econ.GN↗