Can you explain why you think this disputes my point?

The real interest rate is the nominal interest rate minus inflation. When there is inflation, the real interest rate for holding cash is negative. When there is no inflation, that real interest rate is 0%. The disincentive to holding cash disappears and therefore more people hold cash.

> The real interest rate is the nominal interest rate minus inflation.

Yes.

> When there is inflation, the real interest rate for holding cash is negative.

No. This assumes nominal interest rate stays constant which it very much will not do.

I'm still not following your line of thinking. The nominal interest rate on holding cash is always 0%.

You’re right, I didn't read your question accurately. By cash I assumed interest collecting back accounts. The missing out of the opportunity to make risk free money is punishment enough. If people elect to do this then they don’t think it’s risk free and thus are paying a premium to reduce risk.

Ok, glad we are on the same page now. "Holding cash" is vague enough that it could still be in a bank. I thought it was clear what I was talking about since I made the distinction between savings accounts and storing cash under a mattress in my first comment. Savings accounts are risk-free in the same sense that US bonds are risk-free. There is technically some level of risk, but there would have to be a pretty unlikely turn of events to actually lose money. However, there are a whole lot of people out there that don't trust banks and don't trust the government.