In short, my opinion is no. The thing I don't like about the idea of negative rates is that they have little ability to further push investors over to riskier assets beyond a certain point. If rates become too low, then bonds eventually become on par with cash (0% yield), where they already sit in many parts of the world. When that's the case, you've already pushed almost all bond investors out over to stocks and other riskier assets already, so going negative has limited additional stimulatory effect.Where this might not be true is when an economy is mired in deflation. If inflation is at -2%, a 0% bond provides 2% in real yield. Cutting rates below 0% in that case could work if the economy was stagnant, in a recession/deflationary spiral, and the central bank wanted to push investors out over the risk curve, and inflate the prices of riskier assets. This would ideally create a "wealth effect" that incentivizes consumption, and therefore economic growth. (69% of US GDP is comprised of consumption, according to the Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) website.)What would be the rationale behind investing into a 0% bond? Perhaps when you think deflation is on the horizon and riskier assets provide a poor risk/reward proposition. In that case, bonds could be a better alternative to cash despite yielding the same at face value. Accordingly, a 0% bond could serve as a means of wealth preservation. If rates are cut even further south as a result of this, one's bond investment could increase in value.But going back to the situation in the US, August CPI (a customary inflation gauge) came in at 1.1%. It’s hard to support negative rates with positive inflation even if the economy is sputtering into a recession. In that case, I believe an expansion of QE would be the desired tool, followed by (if necessary) “helicopter money,” which would place money directly in the hands of consumers and be tied to spending incentives, such as vouchers or coupon discounts.