ELI5：日本经济长期面临通缩，有时甚至出现零利率或负利率的情况。为什么这是一件坏事呢？“通缩抑制消费意愿，通胀给予消费动力”“缺乏消费就意味着经济走向衰亡”
正文翻译
Deflation is poison for an economy. If cash becomes more valuable sitting in a coffee can (or any zero-risk scenario) then investors are motivated to not invest at all and reap the returns they get. Additionally, consumers are motivated to wait as long as possible to make any purchase, as the purchase will be less expensive the longer they wait.
This creates a death spiral - businesses can't get investment and consumers don't purchase, so they reduce the goods they produce and lay off workers. This means even less purchasing and investing, which means even more reductions in work force. So on and so forth.
If that wasn't bad enough, it makes debt more difficult to service the longer times goes by. Your debt is a fixed number, but if the value of that debt goes up thanks to deflation, the debt becomes harder to payoff.
Almost every modern economy targets a modest amount of inflation (2-3%) if for no other reason than to ensure this scenario doesn't happen.
通缩对经济而言犹如毒药。若现金在储蓄罐中（或任何零风险情况下）变得越来越值钱，投资者将倾向于完全不投资，而是坐享其升值收益。同时，消费者也会尽可能长时间地推迟购买行为，因为他们知道等待越久，商品价格就会越便宜。
这种现象会引发恶性循环——企业无法获得投资，消费者则减少消费，因此企业不得不降低产量并裁员。这进一步导致更低的消费和投资水平，进而迫使更多劳动力被裁减，如此反复。
更糟糕的是，随着时间推移，通缩会使偿还债务变得更加困难。债务数额固定不变，但由于通缩导致债务价值相对增加，债务实际上变得更难以清偿。
因此，几乎每个现代经济体都设定适度的通胀目标（通常为2%-3%），即使只是为了确保上述情况不会发生。
Deflation is poison for an economy. If cash becomes more valuable sitting in a coffee can (or any zero-risk scenario) then investors are motivated to not invest at all and reap the returns they get. Additionally, consumers are motivated to wait as long as possible to make any purchase, as the purchase will be less expensive the longer they wait.
This creates a death spiral - businesses can't get investment and consumers don't purchase, so they reduce the goods they produce and lay off workers. This means even less purchasing and investing, which means even more reductions in work force. So on and so forth.
If that wasn't bad enough, it makes debt more difficult to service the longer times goes by. Your debt is a fixed number, but if the value of that debt goes up thanks to deflation, the debt becomes harder to payoff.
Almost every modern economy targets a modest amount of inflation (2-3%) if for no other reason than to ensure this scenario doesn't happen.
通缩对经济而言犹如毒药。若现金在储蓄罐中（或任何零风险情况下）变得越来越值钱，投资者将倾向于完全不投资，而是坐享其升值收益。同时，消费者也会尽可能长时间地推迟购买行为，因为他们知道等待越久，商品价格就会越便宜。
这种现象会引发恶性循环——企业无法获得投资，消费者则减少消费，因此企业不得不降低产量并裁员。这进一步导致更低的消费和投资水平，进而迫使更多劳动力被裁减，如此反复。
更糟糕的是，随着时间推移，通缩会使偿还债务变得更加困难。债务数额固定不变，但由于通缩导致债务价值相对增加，债务实际上变得更难以清偿。
因此，几乎每个现代经济体都设定适度的通胀目标（通常为2%-3%），即使只是为了确保上述情况不会发生。
评论翻译
@Firamaster
Tl;dr: what's worse than money moving very slowly? Money not moving at all.
总结：比资金流动缓慢更糟糕的是什么？那就是资金完全停止流动。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Tl;dr: what's worse than money moving very slowly? Money not moving at all.
总结：比资金流动缓慢更糟糕的是什么？那就是资金完全停止流动。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@birbish
Just out of interest, what's the point of cash if you don't spend it? As in, people can leave cash in a coffee can as long as they want and it'll keep gaining value, but if they never spend it then it might as well have had zero value.
Obviously, there might be a hard limit such as the thing you're wanting to purchase becoming unavailable but people won't necessarily know about stuff like that in advance.
I have no real knowlesge of economics, so I hope that makes sense!
出于好奇，如果不花掉现金，持有现金的意义何在？比如，人们可以把现金放在咖啡罐里存放任意长时间，它会不断增值，但如果他们从不花掉这些钱，那它实际上就和没有价值一样。 显然，可能存在某种硬性限制，例如想要购买的商品在未来可能不再可得，但人们未必能预先知道这类情况。 我没有经济学的专业知识，希望我的想法能讲得通。
Just out of interest, what's the point of cash if you don't spend it? As in, people can leave cash in a coffee can as long as they want and it'll keep gaining value, but if they never spend it then it might as well have had zero value.
Obviously, there might be a hard limit such as the thing you're wanting to purchase becoming unavailable but people won't necessarily know about stuff like that in advance.
I have no real knowlesge of economics, so I hope that makes sense!
出于好奇，如果不花掉现金，持有现金的意义何在？比如，人们可以把现金放在咖啡罐里存放任意长时间，它会不断增值，但如果他们从不花掉这些钱，那它实际上就和没有价值一样。 显然，可能存在某种硬性限制，例如想要购买的商品在未来可能不再可得，但人们未必能预先知道这类情况。 我没有经济学的专业知识，希望我的想法能讲得通。
@Ansuz07
The point of cash is of course to eventually spend it, but a great many of us hold onto cash for long periods. If you have a 401K or a savings account, you have cash you choose not to spend today because you anticipate you will need to spend it later.
Having that cash sit stagnant isn't good for an economy. It is better to invest that for economic growth. Lend it to someone who needs to spend cash now - they purchase goods and services today and you get a little interest for your trouble. It's a win-win.
Deflation makes it to where you are already making money by doing nothing. You are less motivated to make that loan, or if you do it is going to be at a higher interest rate. Either way, it means fewer loans being made, and thus less purchasing happening.
现金的意义当然在于最终将其消费，但很多人会长期持有现金。如果你拥有401K退休储蓄计划或储蓄账户，就意味着你选择不立即消费这部分现金，因为你预计将来会有需要时再用。
让这些现金闲置不动对经济并无益处。更好的做法是将它用于投资以促进经济增长。你可以把钱借给现在急需现金的人——他们今天购买商品和服务，而你则从中获得一些利息作为回报，这是双赢的策略。
然而，通缩使得你无需采取任何行动就能赚钱。这样一来，你就不太有动力去放贷，即使你愿意，也可能会要求更高的利率。无论哪种情况，都会导致贷款减少，从而进一步减少了购买行为的发生。
The point of cash is of course to eventually spend it, but a great many of us hold onto cash for long periods. If you have a 401K or a savings account, you have cash you choose not to spend today because you anticipate you will need to spend it later.
Having that cash sit stagnant isn't good for an economy. It is better to invest that for economic growth. Lend it to someone who needs to spend cash now - they purchase goods and services today and you get a little interest for your trouble. It's a win-win.
Deflation makes it to where you are already making money by doing nothing. You are less motivated to make that loan, or if you do it is going to be at a higher interest rate. Either way, it means fewer loans being made, and thus less purchasing happening.
现金的意义当然在于最终将其消费，但很多人会长期持有现金。如果你拥有401K退休储蓄计划或储蓄账户，就意味着你选择不立即消费这部分现金，因为你预计将来会有需要时再用。
让这些现金闲置不动对经济并无益处。更好的做法是将它用于投资以促进经济增长。你可以把钱借给现在急需现金的人——他们今天购买商品和服务，而你则从中获得一些利息作为回报，这是双赢的策略。
然而，通缩使得你无需采取任何行动就能赚钱。这样一来，你就不太有动力去放贷，即使你愿意，也可能会要求更高的利率。无论哪种情况，都会导致贷款减少，从而进一步减少了购买行为的发生。
@VoilaVoilaWashington
you have cash you choose not to spend today because you anticipate you will need to spend it later.
AKSHUALLY.... you have spent it. You've invested it, directly or indirectly, in a company, or loaned it to a government, or so. Exactly in line with your original point, you did so because someone will give you more for the thing later.
It's a bit removed from being intuitive in the stock market, but imagine you give it to a friend to start a business. That's exactly what inflation encourages - take a bit of a risk, try to end up with more money later.
Deflation, like you said, makes it safer to keep in a coffee can.
你之所以选择今天不花掉这些现金，是因为你预期将来会有需要时再用。 实际上……你已经“花费”了这笔钱。无论直接还是间接，你都已将其投资于某家公司，或者借给了政府等。这完全符合你的最初观点：你这么做是因为未来别人会给你更多的回报。
在股市中可能不太直观，但想象一下你将这笔钱给朋友去创业。这就是通胀所鼓励的——承担一些风险，试图在未来获得更多的钱。
正如你所说，通缩使得把钱存放在咖啡罐里变得更安全。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
you have cash you choose not to spend today because you anticipate you will need to spend it later.
AKSHUALLY.... you have spent it. You've invested it, directly or indirectly, in a company, or loaned it to a government, or so. Exactly in line with your original point, you did so because someone will give you more for the thing later.
It's a bit removed from being intuitive in the stock market, but imagine you give it to a friend to start a business. That's exactly what inflation encourages - take a bit of a risk, try to end up with more money later.
Deflation, like you said, makes it safer to keep in a coffee can.
你之所以选择今天不花掉这些现金，是因为你预期将来会有需要时再用。 实际上……你已经“花费”了这笔钱。无论直接还是间接，你都已将其投资于某家公司，或者借给了政府等。这完全符合你的最初观点：你这么做是因为未来别人会给你更多的回报。
在股市中可能不太直观，但想象一下你将这笔钱给朋友去创业。这就是通胀所鼓励的——承担一些风险，试图在未来获得更多的钱。
正如你所说，通缩使得把钱存放在咖啡罐里变得更安全。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@HealenDeGenerates
It’s not just about getting more money later, which doesn’t rely on inflation as much as your wording implies, but rather that your cash is guaranteed to lose value being saved, therefore you don’t keep it in savings. Investments is one of the most common reactions to this process.
这并不仅仅是为了在未来获得更多钱，这一目标并不像你所表述的那样依赖于通胀，而是因为你的现金在储蓄中肯定会贬值，因此你不会将它存放在储蓄中。在这种情况下，投资是人们最常见的应对方式之一。
It’s not just about getting more money later, which doesn’t rely on inflation as much as your wording implies, but rather that your cash is guaranteed to lose value being saved, therefore you don’t keep it in savings. Investments is one of the most common reactions to this process.
这并不仅仅是为了在未来获得更多钱，这一目标并不像你所表述的那样依赖于通胀，而是因为你的现金在储蓄中肯定会贬值，因此你不会将它存放在储蓄中。在这种情况下，投资是人们最常见的应对方式之一。
@Imanton1
Oh yea, it's really fun as a thought. Probably not as fun living through it.
It's basically the same as a CD or Bond, you don't save your essential money, because you can't live without food.
The main thing it comes down to isn't a single cookie jar, but long term trends, how people interact, and compounding effects. 2% of a house is ~20K. Could you wait an extra few months on a house for a basically free 20,000?
And don't forget that's -2% inflation after the governments been fighting it for 30+ years. If something happens and it spirals faster, does 4% seem more interesting? That's more than a savings account or most CDs or Bonds for a couple decades.
Sadly, I don't have a hard-and-clear line of reasoning. If you hear there's deflation, you just don't buy the candy bar, and the economy slows that little big more.
The stock market I recall is also very sensitive to deflation, if a broker will just make more money by with drawing everything from a few companies, then you see a clear death spiral as those companies loose large money.
After some math, if you have over 200K in your bank, then deflation would lead to you making an extra 100 per week equivalent.
And I'll leave with this: "The average annual return of the S&P 500 was 10% from 1980-2022" so once you start nearing 5% or 7%, you might be beating out some stock portfolios just by doing nothing. At least they won't be dealing with the numbers of bad inflation, easily over 400%.
哦，是的，这作为思考问题真的很有趣，但实际经历可能就没那么愉快了。基本上，这就跟购买定期存款或债券一样，你不会用必需的生活费去储蓄，因为你不能没有食物过日子。
关键点并不在于单一的储蓄罐，而是长期趋势、人们如何互动以及复利效应。对于一栋房子来说，2%就是大约2万美元，你是否愿意为了几乎免费得到这2万美金而多等几个月呢？
同时别忘了，这是在政府连续30多年努力抑制通胀之后出现的-2%通缩。一旦发生某种情况导致通缩加速，4%的通缩是不是就更值得关注了？这比几十年来大多数储蓄账户、CD或债券的收益都要高得多。
遗憾的是，我没有一个硬性且明确的逻辑界限。如果听说有通缩，你可能就不会买那个糖果棒，这样经济就会因此稍微减速一点。
我还记得股市对通缩也非常敏感，如果有经纪人通过从几家公司撤资就能赚得更多，那么你会看到明显的死亡螺旋——这些公司会大量流失资金。
经过一番计算，如果你银行里有超过20万美元，那么通缩将会使你每周相当于多赚100美元。
最后补充一点：“从1980年到2022年，标普500指数的平均年化回报率为10%”，所以当你开始接近5%甚至7%的“收益率”时，仅仅通过什么都不做，你可能会超越某些股票投资组合的表现。至少，相比于那些糟糕的通胀率（轻松超过400%），你的财富保值增值效果会更好。
Oh yea, it's really fun as a thought. Probably not as fun living through it.
It's basically the same as a CD or Bond, you don't save your essential money, because you can't live without food.
The main thing it comes down to isn't a single cookie jar, but long term trends, how people interact, and compounding effects. 2% of a house is ~20K. Could you wait an extra few months on a house for a basically free 20,000?
And don't forget that's -2% inflation after the governments been fighting it for 30+ years. If something happens and it spirals faster, does 4% seem more interesting? That's more than a savings account or most CDs or Bonds for a couple decades.
Sadly, I don't have a hard-and-clear line of reasoning. If you hear there's deflation, you just don't buy the candy bar, and the economy slows that little big more.
The stock market I recall is also very sensitive to deflation, if a broker will just make more money by with drawing everything from a few companies, then you see a clear death spiral as those companies loose large money.
After some math, if you have over 200K in your bank, then deflation would lead to you making an extra 100 per week equivalent.
And I'll leave with this: "The average annual return of the S&P 500 was 10% from 1980-2022" so once you start nearing 5% or 7%, you might be beating out some stock portfolios just by doing nothing. At least they won't be dealing with the numbers of bad inflation, easily over 400%.
哦，是的，这作为思考问题真的很有趣，但实际经历可能就没那么愉快了。基本上，这就跟购买定期存款或债券一样，你不会用必需的生活费去储蓄，因为你不能没有食物过日子。
关键点并不在于单一的储蓄罐，而是长期趋势、人们如何互动以及复利效应。对于一栋房子来说，2%就是大约2万美元，你是否愿意为了几乎免费得到这2万美金而多等几个月呢？
同时别忘了，这是在政府连续30多年努力抑制通胀之后出现的-2%通缩。一旦发生某种情况导致通缩加速，4%的通缩是不是就更值得关注了？这比几十年来大多数储蓄账户、CD或债券的收益都要高得多。
遗憾的是，我没有一个硬性且明确的逻辑界限。如果听说有通缩，你可能就不会买那个糖果棒，这样经济就会因此稍微减速一点。
我还记得股市对通缩也非常敏感，如果有经纪人通过从几家公司撤资就能赚得更多，那么你会看到明显的死亡螺旋——这些公司会大量流失资金。
经过一番计算，如果你银行里有超过20万美元，那么通缩将会使你每周相当于多赚100美元。
最后补充一点：“从1980年到2022年，标普500指数的平均年化回报率为10%”，所以当你开始接近5%甚至7%的“收益率”时，仅仅通过什么都不做，你可能会超越某些股票投资组合的表现。至少，相比于那些糟糕的通胀率（轻松超过400%），你的财富保值增值效果会更好。
@LeatherSteak
Thanks - those are helpful thoughts. I hadn't appreciated how sensitive the economy is to deflation.
Given the inflation the past couple of years, I'm sure many would be keen for a few years of -2% to bring things back down to pre-pandemic levels. In theory, no one's going to stop buying important things just to potentially save 2% on it in a year.
But I suppose it's difficult to control inflation and whilst there are mechanisms to nudge it up and down, nothing is perfect and we could see ourselves spiralling out of control, which I understand a little better thanks to your response. Cheers.
谢谢，这些想法很有帮助。我之前还没意识到经济对通缩有多么敏感。
考虑到过去几年的通胀情况，我相信许多人会渴望有几年-2%的通缩来让物价回落到疫情前的水平。理论上来说，没有人会仅仅为了可能在一年内节省2%的支出而停止购买重要的东西。
但是，我认为控制通胀确实困难重重，尽管存在一些可以促使通胀上下波动的机制，但没有哪个方法是完美的。通过你的回复，我现在稍微更好地理解了我们可能会面临失控的风险，即通胀或通缩出现螺旋式加剧的情况。再次感谢。
Thanks - those are helpful thoughts. I hadn't appreciated how sensitive the economy is to deflation.
Given the inflation the past couple of years, I'm sure many would be keen for a few years of -2% to bring things back down to pre-pandemic levels. In theory, no one's going to stop buying important things just to potentially save 2% on it in a year.
But I suppose it's difficult to control inflation and whilst there are mechanisms to nudge it up and down, nothing is perfect and we could see ourselves spiralling out of control, which I understand a little better thanks to your response. Cheers.
谢谢，这些想法很有帮助。我之前还没意识到经济对通缩有多么敏感。
考虑到过去几年的通胀情况，我相信许多人会渴望有几年-2%的通缩来让物价回落到疫情前的水平。理论上来说，没有人会仅仅为了可能在一年内节省2%的支出而停止购买重要的东西。
但是，我认为控制通胀确实困难重重，尽管存在一些可以促使通胀上下波动的机制，但没有哪个方法是完美的。通过你的回复，我现在稍微更好地理解了我们可能会面临失控的风险，即通胀或通缩出现螺旋式加剧的情况。再次感谢。
@Coomb
Nobody is going to stop spending money on food and clothing and shelter because of deflation, precisely because they need to spend money on those things to live. But that's not what's important. What's important is all the things that people can delay spending on, like a new car or a new TV or even new clothes that aren't absolutely necessary, or new silverware or a new iron or anything else that someone can put off until later.
Much more important, though, is that deflation means people who are already in debt are in even more debt over time. If you took out a $300,000 mortgage to buy your house, and there is 2% deflation, then the value of your house decreases by $6,000 per year. More importantly, you are accruing interest on that loan at a fixed rate in all likelihood, meaning that not only is your house going down in value, but the payments you have to make to keep up with your mortgage are becoming more expensive over time. That's much more important to you than the fact that your burger from McDonald's costs $4.90 instead of $5.
没有人会因为通缩而停止在食物、衣物和住所上的支出，这恰恰是因为他们为了生活必须在这些必需品上花钱。然而，关键不在于此。重要的是人们可以选择延后购买的商品，比如新车、新电视，甚至是并非绝对必要的新衣服，或者是新的餐具、熨斗或其他任何可以稍后再买的东西。
更重要的是，通缩意味着已经负债的人随着时间推移债务负担将变得更重。例如，如果你贷款30万美元买房，而出现了2%的通缩，那么你的房子每年价值将减少6000美元。更重要的是，你很可能按照固定利率累计这笔贷款利息，这意味着不仅你的房产价值在下降，而且随着时间推移，你需要支付的按揭还款实际上变得越来越昂贵。对于你而言，这一点远比麦当劳汉堡从5美元降价到4.90美元要重要得多。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Nobody is going to stop spending money on food and clothing and shelter because of deflation, precisely because they need to spend money on those things to live. But that's not what's important. What's important is all the things that people can delay spending on, like a new car or a new TV or even new clothes that aren't absolutely necessary, or new silverware or a new iron or anything else that someone can put off until later.
Much more important, though, is that deflation means people who are already in debt are in even more debt over time. If you took out a $300,000 mortgage to buy your house, and there is 2% deflation, then the value of your house decreases by $6,000 per year. More importantly, you are accruing interest on that loan at a fixed rate in all likelihood, meaning that not only is your house going down in value, but the payments you have to make to keep up with your mortgage are becoming more expensive over time. That's much more important to you than the fact that your burger from McDonald's costs $4.90 instead of $5.
没有人会因为通缩而停止在食物、衣物和住所上的支出，这恰恰是因为他们为了生活必须在这些必需品上花钱。然而，关键不在于此。重要的是人们可以选择延后购买的商品，比如新车、新电视，甚至是并非绝对必要的新衣服，或者是新的餐具、熨斗或其他任何可以稍后再买的东西。
更重要的是，通缩意味着已经负债的人随着时间推移债务负担将变得更重。例如，如果你贷款30万美元买房，而出现了2%的通缩，那么你的房子每年价值将减少6000美元。更重要的是，你很可能按照固定利率累计这笔贷款利息，这意味着不仅你的房产价值在下降，而且随着时间推移，你需要支付的按揭还款实际上变得越来越昂贵。对于你而言，这一点远比麦当劳汉堡从5美元降价到4.90美元要重要得多。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@LaForge_Maneuver
They would spend less. Not stop spending, spending less. Consumer spending is a big part of the economy.
他们会减少支出，而非停止支出。消费者支出是经济的重要组成部分。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
They would spend less. Not stop spending, spending less. Consumer spending is a big part of the economy.
他们会减少支出，而非停止支出。消费者支出是经济的重要组成部分。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@cubonelvl69
You need to compare inflation vs deflation.
If I told you jeans went up 5% every year, you'd probably try to stock up and buy a few pairs now
If I told you jeans went down 5% per year, you'd buy the bare minimum and only replace them when you absolutely had to
Yes, a small percentage won't make that big of a difference for an individual, but when you combine the entire economy a small impact can lead to massive consequence
One person choosing to buy a $50 pair of jeans this year or next year doesn't matter. 350 million people doing that matters
你需要对比通胀与通缩的影响。
如果我告诉你牛仔裤每年上涨5%，你可能就会尝试多买几条储备起来。
但如果我告诉你牛仔裤每年降价5%，你则只会购买最低限度的数量，并且只会在绝对必要的时候才去更换它们。
是的，对个人来说，小幅度的价格变动可能不会有太大的影响，但当整个经济体系中所有人的行为累加起来时，一个小的影响也可能导致巨大的后果。
一个人选择今年还是明年购买一条50美元的牛仔裤或许无关紧要，但3.5亿人做出同样的决定，其影响就举足轻重了。
You need to compare inflation vs deflation.
If I told you jeans went up 5% every year, you'd probably try to stock up and buy a few pairs now
If I told you jeans went down 5% per year, you'd buy the bare minimum and only replace them when you absolutely had to
Yes, a small percentage won't make that big of a difference for an individual, but when you combine the entire economy a small impact can lead to massive consequence
One person choosing to buy a $50 pair of jeans this year or next year doesn't matter. 350 million people doing that matters
你需要对比通胀与通缩的影响。
如果我告诉你牛仔裤每年上涨5%，你可能就会尝试多买几条储备起来。
但如果我告诉你牛仔裤每年降价5%，你则只会购买最低限度的数量，并且只会在绝对必要的时候才去更换它们。
是的，对个人来说，小幅度的价格变动可能不会有太大的影响，但当整个经济体系中所有人的行为累加起来时，一个小的影响也可能导致巨大的后果。
一个人选择今年还是明年购买一条50美元的牛仔裤或许无关紧要，但3.5亿人做出同样的决定，其影响就举足轻重了。
@flight567
But.. I buy jeans when I need jeans. I’m not going to buy jeans 3 pairs of jeans when I don’t need 3 pairs.
但是……我只会在需要牛仔裤的时候购买。如果不需要三件，我也不会去买三件牛仔裤。
But.. I buy jeans when I need jeans. I’m not going to buy jeans 3 pairs of jeans when I don’t need 3 pairs.
但是……我只会在需要牛仔裤的时候购买。如果不需要三件，我也不会去买三件牛仔裤。
@ustopable
Sure you only buy jeans when you need jeans but anyone else is continuously buying to meet up with changing trends
当然，你只会在需要的时候购买牛仔裤，但其他人可能为了追赶潮流而不断购买新的。
Sure you only buy jeans when you need jeans but anyone else is continuously buying to meet up with changing trends
当然，你只会在需要的时候购买牛仔裤，但其他人可能为了追赶潮流而不断购买新的。
@!Impressive_Judge8823
You could say the same thing about investing money. It’s just that using money in some way gives people jobs and shit.
你可以说投资金钱也是同样的道理。关键在于，将钱以某种方式使用可以为人们创造就业和各种机会。
You could say the same thing about investing money. It’s just that using money in some way gives people jobs and shit.
你可以说投资金钱也是同样的道理。关键在于，将钱以某种方式使用可以为人们创造就业和各种机会。
@LaForge_Maneuver
Why do most people who have digital currency (like Bitcoin) never spend it? Because they view it as an investment instead of as a currency.
为什么大多数拥有数字货币（比如比特币）的人从不花掉它？因为他们将其视为一种投资而非货币。
Why do most people who have digital currency (like Bitcoin) never spend it? Because they view it as an investment instead of as a currency.
为什么大多数拥有数字货币（比如比特币）的人从不花掉它？因为他们将其视为一种投资而非货币。
@Guvante
Bitcoin doubled in value a year for a while.
Why buy a $30k car today when you can buy a $60k car in a year?
比特币曾有一段时间内一年内价值翻倍。 既然一年后可以用同样的钱购买一辆6万美元的车，何必今天就买一辆3万美元的车呢？
Bitcoin doubled in value a year for a while.
Why buy a $30k car today when you can buy a $60k car in a year?
比特币曾有一段时间内一年内价值翻倍。 既然一年后可以用同样的钱购买一辆6万美元的车，何必今天就买一辆3万美元的车呢？
@aokon
Genuine question so sorry if it's dumb. But if you have deflation couldn't you just print more money to cause inflation?
真实的问题，如果显得愚蠢还请见谅。但如果存在通缩，难道不能通过印制更多货币来造成通胀吗？
Genuine question so sorry if it's dumb. But if you have deflation couldn't you just print more money to cause inflation?
真实的问题，如果显得愚蠢还请见谅。但如果存在通缩，难道不能通过印制更多货币来造成通胀吗？
@Daiku_Firecross
Sorry if I sound ignorant because I am when it comes to this stuff, so you're saying inflation is a good thing? If that's so, then why, here in America, there is always this doom and gloom about inflation?
Inflation causes prices to go up, no? Wouldn't that cut the amount consumers are spending, thus also causing employers to cut jobs/wages?
抱歉如果我听起来有些无知，因为在这些方面我确实不太了解。所以您是说通胀是一件好事？如果是这样的话，为什么在美国总会有人对通胀持有悲观和担忧的态度？ 通胀不是会导致价格上涨吗？这样一来不会减少消费者的支出金额，从而也促使雇主削减职位和工资吗？
Sorry if I sound ignorant because I am when it comes to this stuff, so you're saying inflation is a good thing? If that's so, then why, here in America, there is always this doom and gloom about inflation?
Inflation causes prices to go up, no? Wouldn't that cut the amount consumers are spending, thus also causing employers to cut jobs/wages?
抱歉如果我听起来有些无知，因为在这些方面我确实不太了解。所以您是说通胀是一件好事？如果是这样的话，为什么在美国总会有人对通胀持有悲观和担忧的态度？ 通胀不是会导致价格上涨吗？这样一来不会减少消费者的支出金额，从而也促使雇主削减职位和工资吗？
@Ansuz07
Sorry if I sound ignorant because I am when it comes to this stuff, so you're saying inflation is a good thing?
Modest inflation is a good thing for an economy:
1.It serves as a hedge against deflation (explained above).
2.It makes debt easier to service as time passes.
3.It punishes stagnant money, which encourages investment
4.It motivates consumers to buy earlier, which promotes the flow of money in the economy.
If that's so, then why, here in America, there is always this doom and gloom about inflation?
Too much inflation is a bad thing. Inflation in the US was around 9% for a while, which is too high and causes its own issues. The target is typically 2-3%.
As for folks who bristle at even modest inflation - many folks don't have a good grasp of macroeconomics.
Inflation causes prices to go up, no? Wouldn't that cut the amount consumers are spending, thus also causing employers to cut jobs/wages?
The assumption is that as inflation occurs, wages go up to match. Historically, this is true. As wages go up, consumers have the cash to afford the higher prices, so consumer spending in unaffected.
抱歉如果我听起来有些无知，因为在这些经济问题上我确实不太了解，所以您是说适度的通胀对经济来说是一件好事吗？
是的，适度的通胀对于经济是有益的：
1.它可以作为对抗通缩的保障（如上述所述）。
2.随着时间推移，它使得债务更容易偿还。
3.它惩罚闲置资金，从而鼓励投资行为。
4.它激励消费者尽早购买，促进经济中的货币流通。
既然如此，为什么在美国总是有人对通胀持悲观和担忧的态度呢？
这是因为过度的通胀确实不是一件好事。美国曾有一段时间通胀率高达9%，这样的高通胀会引发一系列问题。通常目标通胀率设定在2%-3%左右。
对于那些即使面对适度通胀也感到不安的人来说，他们中许多人可能没有很好地理解宏观经济概念。
通胀会导致物价上涨，难道不会因此减少消费者的支出金额，进而导致雇主削减职位和工资吗？
理论上，在发生通胀的同时，工资也会相应上涨以保持平衡。从历史经验来看，这种情况确实存在。随着工资增长，消费者有足够现金负担更高的价格，因此消费支出不受影响。
Sorry if I sound ignorant because I am when it comes to this stuff, so you're saying inflation is a good thing?
Modest inflation is a good thing for an economy:
1.It serves as a hedge against deflation (explained above).
2.It makes debt easier to service as time passes.
3.It punishes stagnant money, which encourages investment
4.It motivates consumers to buy earlier, which promotes the flow of money in the economy.
If that's so, then why, here in America, there is always this doom and gloom about inflation?
Too much inflation is a bad thing. Inflation in the US was around 9% for a while, which is too high and causes its own issues. The target is typically 2-3%.
As for folks who bristle at even modest inflation - many folks don't have a good grasp of macroeconomics.
Inflation causes prices to go up, no? Wouldn't that cut the amount consumers are spending, thus also causing employers to cut jobs/wages?
The assumption is that as inflation occurs, wages go up to match. Historically, this is true. As wages go up, consumers have the cash to afford the higher prices, so consumer spending in unaffected.
抱歉如果我听起来有些无知，因为在这些经济问题上我确实不太了解，所以您是说适度的通胀对经济来说是一件好事吗？
是的，适度的通胀对于经济是有益的：
1.它可以作为对抗通缩的保障（如上述所述）。
2.随着时间推移，它使得债务更容易偿还。
3.它惩罚闲置资金，从而鼓励投资行为。
4.它激励消费者尽早购买，促进经济中的货币流通。
既然如此，为什么在美国总是有人对通胀持悲观和担忧的态度呢？
这是因为过度的通胀确实不是一件好事。美国曾有一段时间通胀率高达9%，这样的高通胀会引发一系列问题。通常目标通胀率设定在2%-3%左右。
对于那些即使面对适度通胀也感到不安的人来说，他们中许多人可能没有很好地理解宏观经济概念。
通胀会导致物价上涨，难道不会因此减少消费者的支出金额，进而导致雇主削减职位和工资吗？
理论上，在发生通胀的同时，工资也会相应上涨以保持平衡。从历史经验来看，这种情况确实存在。随着工资增长，消费者有足够现金负担更高的价格，因此消费支出不受影响。
@derek_32999
Inflation is also great for increasing wealth inequality thru the cantillon effect. Add too big to fail food, oil, media, bank, pharm giants, soft on white collar crime , government bailouts, free loans etc.
You say wages go up to match inflation, but that wouldn't explain the ever growing concentration of wealth in 1% and further 0.1% and the increasing number of people working two jobs, living at home with parents, having less assets etc.
Also, I understand these things are super mega Ultra complex and not easily explained in a subreddit and apologize if this comes off as inflammatory
通货膨胀也会通过坎蒂隆效应加剧财富不平等。再加上“大到不能倒”的食品、石油、媒体、银行和制药巨头，以及对白领犯罪的宽松惩罚、政府救助、无息贷款等措施，使得这一问题更加严重。
你说工资会上涨以匹配通胀，但这并不能解释为何1%甚至0.1%的人口持续聚集更多财富，而越来越多的人需要打两份工、与父母同住、拥有较少资产等现象。
另外，我也明白这些问题极为复杂，很难在Reddit这样的论坛上简单地解释清楚，如果我的发言显得有些激进，请谅解。
Inflation is also great for increasing wealth inequality thru the cantillon effect. Add too big to fail food, oil, media, bank, pharm giants, soft on white collar crime , government bailouts, free loans etc.
You say wages go up to match inflation, but that wouldn't explain the ever growing concentration of wealth in 1% and further 0.1% and the increasing number of people working two jobs, living at home with parents, having less assets etc.
Also, I understand these things are super mega Ultra complex and not easily explained in a subreddit and apologize if this comes off as inflammatory
通货膨胀也会通过坎蒂隆效应加剧财富不平等。再加上“大到不能倒”的食品、石油、媒体、银行和制药巨头，以及对白领犯罪的宽松惩罚、政府救助、无息贷款等措施，使得这一问题更加严重。
你说工资会上涨以匹配通胀，但这并不能解释为何1%甚至0.1%的人口持续聚集更多财富，而越来越多的人需要打两份工、与父母同住、拥有较少资产等现象。
另外，我也明白这些问题极为复杂，很难在Reddit这样的论坛上简单地解释清楚，如果我的发言显得有些激进，请谅解。
@ILookLikeKristoff
Inflation is good for the economy, assuming wages rise at the same rate. Unfortunately wages are often slow to respond to market changes plus often have political mingling to keep them suppressed.
But yes, you're right. If inflation rises faster than wages then eventually you'll have a workforce that can't afford to buy anything.
This is especially bad when the price changes that are leading inflation are mandatory purchases - rent, food, gas, used car prices, etc.
通胀对经济有益，前提是工资能以相同的速度上涨。不幸的是，工资往往对市场变化反应迟缓，并且时常受到政治干预而被压低。
但你说得对，如果通胀率增长速度超过工资增长速度，最终会导致劳动力群体无力购买任何商品。
当导致通胀上升的价格变动涉及必需品时问题尤其严重——如房租、食品、汽油、二手车价格等。
Inflation is good for the economy, assuming wages rise at the same rate. Unfortunately wages are often slow to respond to market changes plus often have political mingling to keep them suppressed.
But yes, you're right. If inflation rises faster than wages then eventually you'll have a workforce that can't afford to buy anything.
This is especially bad when the price changes that are leading inflation are mandatory purchases - rent, food, gas, used car prices, etc.
通胀对经济有益，前提是工资能以相同的速度上涨。不幸的是，工资往往对市场变化反应迟缓，并且时常受到政治干预而被压低。
但你说得对，如果通胀率增长速度超过工资增长速度，最终会导致劳动力群体无力购买任何商品。
当导致通胀上升的价格变动涉及必需品时问题尤其严重——如房租、食品、汽油、二手车价格等。
@daveshistory-sf
Whether inflation is good or bad depends on where you sit in terms of having cash and other investments. The general position of central banks and many economists is that a small, stable inflation rate is probably the best compromise.
The issue with deflation is that it can discourage people from spending money. After all, if that new gizmo is $20 today but I know it will be $18 next month, I might as well just wait to buy it. So the economy as a whole suffers from less spending, even if I as an individual benefit.
Inflation gives people an incentive to spend money now, because if that gizmo is $20 today but it's going to be $22 next year, I better buy it now while I can still get the "deal." That's not good for me as an individual, but it is good for the economy today, since it means more spending.
On the other hand again, if inflation is extremely high, people get very upset because their wages aren't keeping up, prices are spiraling out of control, and governments face massive popular unrest.
So really it's not a question of what @of inflation is the best rate obxtively. It's a question of how to balance a bunch of different priorities. Historically governments like ours tried to hold the inflation rate at around 2% because that was considered high enough not to suffer from deflation risks, on the one hand, but not so high as to threaten political and economic unrest, on the other.
通胀是否有益取决于你所处的现金和投资状况。中央银行及许多经济学家普遍认为，适度稳定的低通胀率可能是最佳折衷方案。
通缩的问题在于它会抑制人们的消费意愿。毕竟，如果一件新奇玩意今天售价20美元，但我知道下个月它将降到18美元，我可能更愿意等待购买。因此，整体经济由于消费减少而受到影响，尽管作为个体的我从中受益。
而通胀则给予人们即时消费的动力，因为如果这件新奇玩意今天售价20美元，但明年可能会涨到22美元，那么我最好现在就买，趁还能“占便宜”。这对个体而言并不理想，但对于今天的经济来说是有利的，因为它意味着更多的消费支出。
另一方面，如果通胀率极高，人们会感到非常不满，因为他们工资的增长赶不上物价上涨的速度，价格失控飙升，政府也将面临大规模的社会动荡压力。
所以实际上，并不是要客观地确定哪个通胀率是最好的。问题是如何平衡各种不同的优先事项。历史上，像我们这样的政府试图将通胀率维持在约2%左右，因为这一水平被认为是既能避免通缩风险，又不至于引发政治和经济动荡的理想范围。
Whether inflation is good or bad depends on where you sit in terms of having cash and other investments. The general position of central banks and many economists is that a small, stable inflation rate is probably the best compromise.
The issue with deflation is that it can discourage people from spending money. After all, if that new gizmo is $20 today but I know it will be $18 next month, I might as well just wait to buy it. So the economy as a whole suffers from less spending, even if I as an individual benefit.
Inflation gives people an incentive to spend money now, because if that gizmo is $20 today but it's going to be $22 next year, I better buy it now while I can still get the "deal." That's not good for me as an individual, but it is good for the economy today, since it means more spending.
On the other hand again, if inflation is extremely high, people get very upset because their wages aren't keeping up, prices are spiraling out of control, and governments face massive popular unrest.
So really it's not a question of what @of inflation is the best rate obxtively. It's a question of how to balance a bunch of different priorities. Historically governments like ours tried to hold the inflation rate at around 2% because that was considered high enough not to suffer from deflation risks, on the one hand, but not so high as to threaten political and economic unrest, on the other.
通胀是否有益取决于你所处的现金和投资状况。中央银行及许多经济学家普遍认为，适度稳定的低通胀率可能是最佳折衷方案。
通缩的问题在于它会抑制人们的消费意愿。毕竟，如果一件新奇玩意今天售价20美元，但我知道下个月它将降到18美元，我可能更愿意等待购买。因此，整体经济由于消费减少而受到影响，尽管作为个体的我从中受益。
而通胀则给予人们即时消费的动力，因为如果这件新奇玩意今天售价20美元，但明年可能会涨到22美元，那么我最好现在就买，趁还能“占便宜”。这对个体而言并不理想，但对于今天的经济来说是有利的，因为它意味着更多的消费支出。
另一方面，如果通胀率极高，人们会感到非常不满，因为他们工资的增长赶不上物价上涨的速度，价格失控飙升，政府也将面临大规模的社会动荡压力。
所以实际上，并不是要客观地确定哪个通胀率是最好的。问题是如何平衡各种不同的优先事项。历史上，像我们这样的政府试图将通胀率维持在约2%左右，因为这一水平被认为是既能避免通缩风险，又不至于引发政治和经济动荡的理想范围。
@oren0
Inflation is also generally good for those who hold non-cash assets and assist those who hold debt. Say you have a $1m house and an $800k mortgage. When inflation occurs, your mortgage payment and balance stay the same, but the value of your house and your salary both go up. This means your house effectively gets cheaper for you over time. Compare to someone who holds savings in cash and rents but has no debt. The value of their savings goes down over time and their rent goes up. Even if their salary is also going up, they might be treading water at best.
通货膨胀通常对持有非现金资产的人以及负债者有利。假设你拥有一栋价值100万美元的房子，且有80万美元的抵押贷款。当通胀发生时，你的按揭还款额和余额保持不变，但房子的价值和你的薪水都会随之上升。这意味着随着时间推移，对你而言，房子实际上变得越来越“便宜”。与此相比，那些以现金形式持有储蓄并租房、没有债务的人，他们的储蓄价值会随时间下降，房租却会上涨。即使他们的薪水也在上涨，他们可能最多只能勉强维持收支平衡。
Inflation is also generally good for those who hold non-cash assets and assist those who hold debt. Say you have a $1m house and an $800k mortgage. When inflation occurs, your mortgage payment and balance stay the same, but the value of your house and your salary both go up. This means your house effectively gets cheaper for you over time. Compare to someone who holds savings in cash and rents but has no debt. The value of their savings goes down over time and their rent goes up. Even if their salary is also going up, they might be treading water at best.
通货膨胀通常对持有非现金资产的人以及负债者有利。假设你拥有一栋价值100万美元的房子，且有80万美元的抵押贷款。当通胀发生时，你的按揭还款额和余额保持不变，但房子的价值和你的薪水都会随之上升。这意味着随着时间推移，对你而言，房子实际上变得越来越“便宜”。与此相比，那些以现金形式持有储蓄并租房、没有债务的人，他们的储蓄价值会随时间下降，房租却会上涨。即使他们的薪水也在上涨，他们可能最多只能勉强维持收支平衡。
@vulcan_one
Say you have a $1m house and an $800k mortgage. When inflation occurs, your mortgage payment and balance stay the same, but the value of your house and your salary both go up.
假设你拥有一栋价值100万美元的房子，并且背负着80万美元的抵押贷款。当发生通货膨胀时，你的按揭月供金额在名义上保持不变，同时你的房屋市值和你的薪水都会上涨。
Say you have a $1m house and an $800k mortgage. When inflation occurs, your mortgage payment and balance stay the same, but the value of your house and your salary both go up.
假设你拥有一栋价值100万美元的房子，并且背负着80万美元的抵押贷款。当发生通货膨胀时，你的按揭月供金额在名义上保持不变，同时你的房屋市值和你的薪水都会上涨。
@edubkendo
Is it really such a bad thing if people stop buying gizmos they don't really need or want that badly and only spend on things they really value or need? Seems like deflation discourages the kind of consumption culture that causes so many problems.
如果人们停止购买那些并非真正需要或迫切想要的玩意儿，转而只在真正看重或必需的事物上消费，这真的是一件坏事吗？看上去通缩确实抑制了那种引发诸多问题的过度消费文化。
Is it really such a bad thing if people stop buying gizmos they don't really need or want that badly and only spend on things they really value or need? Seems like deflation discourages the kind of consumption culture that causes so many problems.
如果人们停止购买那些并非真正需要或迫切想要的玩意儿，转而只在真正看重或必需的事物上消费，这真的是一件坏事吗？看上去通缩确实抑制了那种引发诸多问题的过度消费文化。
@daveshistory-sf
That depends on your perspective. If you're a policy-maker whose goal is to keep the economy humming along at top speed, you'd definitely much rather have people spend that money today rather than hold on and maybe, maybe not, spend it a year from now.
From a financial planning perspective, as an individual, you're undoubtedly better off exercising some discipline on big purchases. I agree.
这取决于你的立场。如果你是一位政策制定者，致力于保持经济高速运转，你肯定更希望人们现在就把钱花出去，而不是持币观望，一年后可能、也可能不会消费。
从个人理财规划的角度来看，作为个体，对大额购买行为进行自律无疑更为明智。我同意这一点。
That depends on your perspective. If you're a policy-maker whose goal is to keep the economy humming along at top speed, you'd definitely much rather have people spend that money today rather than hold on and maybe, maybe not, spend it a year from now.
From a financial planning perspective, as an individual, you're undoubtedly better off exercising some discipline on big purchases. I agree.
这取决于你的立场。如果你是一位政策制定者，致力于保持经济高速运转，你肯定更希望人们现在就把钱花出去，而不是持币观望，一年后可能、也可能不会消费。
从个人理财规划的角度来看，作为个体，对大额购买行为进行自律无疑更为明智。我同意这一点。
@edubkendo
I'm kind of cool with that. I'm even cool with a world where 90% of the population are fed, housed, etc without having to work. I am not a fan of people doing shit and making shit and buying shit just to keep the economy spinning along the way it is currently.
我对此倒是挺认同的。我甚至乐见一个90%的人口无需工作就能得到充足食物和住所的世界。我不喜欢人们只是为了维持当前经济体系运转而不断生产和购买各种不必要的东西。
I'm kind of cool with that. I'm even cool with a world where 90% of the population are fed, housed, etc without having to work. I am not a fan of people doing shit and making shit and buying shit just to keep the economy spinning along the way it is currently.
我对此倒是挺认同的。我甚至乐见一个90%的人口无需工作就能得到充足食物和住所的世界。我不喜欢人们只是为了维持当前经济体系运转而不断生产和购买各种不必要的东西。
@Acerhand
This is all text book from the view of large corporations and governments looking to gain taxes. I live in Japan. All the stuff you wrote means little to the average person’s quality of life. If anything, the places with “healthy inflation” have way worse quality of life to wages than Japan.
Especially of you exclude the recent Yen duation.
People in Japan spend much less of their wages on rents and mortgages. The average young person even on minimum wage can afford their own place and still save money even after bills and a little discretionary spending.
London? Nee york? Sydney? Dont make me laugh. You spend most your wages and save nothing just to a home with strangers. Even on a “good” income. On minimum wage you just dont survive.
Japan has maintained a standard of living for decades now much better than these supposed economies with “healthy inflation”.
What is good for corps and government taxes does not mean good for the actual average person. The corporations of Japan have had to adapt to this and dont focus on growing non stop, and instead on existing forever.
这一切都是大型企业和政府寻求税收增长角度下的教科书式观点。我住在日本，你所描述的这些对于普通人的生活质量来说意义不大。实际上，在所谓的“健康通胀”地区，相对于日本，人们的工资与生活质量之间的关系往往更糟糕。
特别是如果排除最近日元贬值的影响，日本的情况更是如此。在日本，人们在房租和按揭上的支出占其工资的比例要小得多。即使是拿着最低工资的年轻人也能负担得起自己的住所，并且在支付账单和一些非必需品消费后仍有结余。
伦敦？纽约？悉尼？别让我笑了。在这些地方，即使收入不错的人也得花费大部分薪水来支付住房费用，甚至可能需要与陌生人合租才能勉强维持生活。而对于拿最低工资的人来说，他们几乎无法生存下去。
日本几十年来保持的生活水平远高于那些所谓拥有“健康通胀”的经济体。
对企业和政府税收有益的事，并不一定意味着对普通大众也有好处。日本的企业已经适应了这种环境，不再一味追求无休止的增长，而是致力于永续经营。
总之，对企业及政府税收有利的措施并不一定代表对实际的普通人同样有利。日本企业已经适应了这一现实，并未专注于持续不断的扩张，而是注重长期稳定的存在和发展。
This is all text book from the view of large corporations and governments looking to gain taxes. I live in Japan. All the stuff you wrote means little to the average person’s quality of life. If anything, the places with “healthy inflation” have way worse quality of life to wages than Japan.
Especially of you exclude the recent Yen duation.
People in Japan spend much less of their wages on rents and mortgages. The average young person even on minimum wage can afford their own place and still save money even after bills and a little discretionary spending.
London? Nee york? Sydney? Dont make me laugh. You spend most your wages and save nothing just to a home with strangers. Even on a “good” income. On minimum wage you just dont survive.
Japan has maintained a standard of living for decades now much better than these supposed economies with “healthy inflation”.
What is good for corps and government taxes does not mean good for the actual average person. The corporations of Japan have had to adapt to this and dont focus on growing non stop, and instead on existing forever.
这一切都是大型企业和政府寻求税收增长角度下的教科书式观点。我住在日本，你所描述的这些对于普通人的生活质量来说意义不大。实际上，在所谓的“健康通胀”地区，相对于日本，人们的工资与生活质量之间的关系往往更糟糕。
特别是如果排除最近日元贬值的影响，日本的情况更是如此。在日本，人们在房租和按揭上的支出占其工资的比例要小得多。即使是拿着最低工资的年轻人也能负担得起自己的住所，并且在支付账单和一些非必需品消费后仍有结余。
伦敦？纽约？悉尼？别让我笑了。在这些地方，即使收入不错的人也得花费大部分薪水来支付住房费用，甚至可能需要与陌生人合租才能勉强维持生活。而对于拿最低工资的人来说，他们几乎无法生存下去。
日本几十年来保持的生活水平远高于那些所谓拥有“健康通胀”的经济体。
对企业和政府税收有益的事，并不一定意味着对普通大众也有好处。日本的企业已经适应了这种环境，不再一味追求无休止的增长，而是致力于永续经营。
总之，对企业及政府税收有利的措施并不一定代表对实际的普通人同样有利。日本企业已经适应了这一现实，并未专注于持续不断的扩张，而是注重长期稳定的存在和发展。
@oren0
Japan is far from an unqualified economic success story.
First, the standards for what is an acceptable unit of housing in Tokyo are very different than New York. Google tells me that the average Tokyo apartment has around 41 square meters (440 Sq ft) of living space, with studios as small as 10 Sq meters (108 Sq ft) available. I don't think a 108 Sq ft apartment would even be legal in NYC, where the average is around 800 Sq ft.
Second and more importantly, Japan has had a stagnant economy for 30 years now. I'm the mid 90s, Japan was the second largest economy in the world and gaining on the US (chart). Since that time, the US economy has more than tripled and Japan's economy has gotten smaller. Today, the US economy is nearly 6x Japan's. Economic growth matters, and Japan will eventually fall behind in standard of living if the economy can't grow.
日本远非一个无条件的经济成功典范。
首先，东京可接受的住房标准与纽约截然不同。谷歌数据显示，东京平均公寓的居住面积约为41平方米（440平方英尺），甚至还有仅10平方米（108平方英尺）的小型单间出租。在纽约市，108平方英尺的公寓可能根本无法达到合法居住标准，那里平均公寓面积约为800平方英尺左右。
其次，也是更为重要的一点，日本经济已经停滞了30年。90年代中期时，日本是全球第二大经济体，并且正在逐渐接近美国（见图表）。然而从那时起至今，美国经济已增长超过三倍，而日本经济却萎缩了。如今，美国经济规模几乎是日本的六倍。经济增长至关重要，如果日本经济不能实现增长，其生活水平最终将落后于其他国家。
Japan is far from an unqualified economic success story.
First, the standards for what is an acceptable unit of housing in Tokyo are very different than New York. Google tells me that the average Tokyo apartment has around 41 square meters (440 Sq ft) of living space, with studios as small as 10 Sq meters (108 Sq ft) available. I don't think a 108 Sq ft apartment would even be legal in NYC, where the average is around 800 Sq ft.
Second and more importantly, Japan has had a stagnant economy for 30 years now. I'm the mid 90s, Japan was the second largest economy in the world and gaining on the US (chart). Since that time, the US economy has more than tripled and Japan's economy has gotten smaller. Today, the US economy is nearly 6x Japan's. Economic growth matters, and Japan will eventually fall behind in standard of living if the economy can't grow.
日本远非一个无条件的经济成功典范。
首先，东京可接受的住房标准与纽约截然不同。谷歌数据显示，东京平均公寓的居住面积约为41平方米（440平方英尺），甚至还有仅10平方米（108平方英尺）的小型单间出租。在纽约市，108平方英尺的公寓可能根本无法达到合法居住标准，那里平均公寓面积约为800平方英尺左右。
其次，也是更为重要的一点，日本经济已经停滞了30年。90年代中期时，日本是全球第二大经济体，并且正在逐渐接近美国（见图表）。然而从那时起至今，美国经济已增长超过三倍，而日本经济却萎缩了。如今，美国经济规模几乎是日本的六倍。经济增长至关重要，如果日本经济不能实现增长，其生活水平最终将落后于其他国家。
@Acerhand
The US economy is almost 6x larger than then, but how has the average persons standard of living changed? Is it 6x better? No. It is actually worse. Quite noticeably. Japans economy? Stayed roughly the same, yet peoples standards of living has also stayed the same as it was back then. A big contrast(no im not boiling it down that much, but obviously the environment leading to the growth versus stagnation have had effects on standard of living which is my point. Woo-hoo house prices are 3x from 1990 alone which doubles the economy!! We are all better off! / sarcasm).
My point here is what benefits average people. I dont give a crap if corporations are 6x bigger if the average person has it worse. This is what i hate about economics in general but especially people who love to talk about it like it is all beneficial. Benefits to who? 6x larger economy? Great for corporations and government tax. “Healthy inflation”? The same. What is “bad”? Low inflation? Well sure. Tax revenue will be down and corporations struggle to grow. Meanwhile the average person can do better in such environments.
It is all a matter of who you are focusing on. Conventional ideas in economics are not for the benefit of you or me, they are the opposite
Also, again something you completely miss at best or are disingenuous with at worst with basic armchair ideas of what is good or bad is your comparison of home costs from New York to Tokyo. People in Tokyo have ALWAYS lived in small places. in the 1950s the same. People in New york have always lived in bigger places than Japan. People did not suddenly start living in smaller places here in Tokyo due to lowered standards and unaffordable. They still get what they always have. Their standard of living has not changed.
Meanwhile people in Places like nee york and london have to these larger spaces with many other strangers to be able to afford anywhere to live at all, while also spending a higher proportion of wages than in the past. Thats a dramatic drop in standards.
You cant gloss over shit like that mate. You have a really naïve sanitised view of economics from the view of the few these ideas benefit and definitely not the average person@oren0
The US economy is almost 6x larger than then, but how has the average persons standard of living changed? Is it 6x better? No. It is actually worse.
I completely disagree, actually. Poverty is down 20%, disposable income inflation-adjusted is up 68% despite people working shorter hours, homes are 30% larger, and there is far more access to goods, appliances, technology, and information.
By what obxtive metric is the US standard of living worse now than it was in 1994?
美国经济规模几乎是当时的6倍，但普通民众的生活水平是否也提高了6倍呢？答案是否定的，实际上生活质量反而有所下降，这一点相当明显。日本经济虽然保持大致不变，但民众的生活水平与当时相比也维持在同一水平。这是一个鲜明的对比（我并不是简单地归结为这样，但显然经济增长与停滞背后的各种环境因素确实对生活水平产生了影响，这是我想表达的观点。欢呼吧，仅从1990年起房价就涨了3倍，这使经济总量翻了一番！我们都过得更好了！/讽刺）。
我的观点是关注什么真正惠及普通人。如果公司规模增长6倍，而普通人的境况却变得更糟，那么我对这种增长毫不关心。这是我对经济学不满的地方，尤其是那些喜欢谈论它如何有益的人。对谁有益？经济规模扩大6倍？这对企业和政府税收当然很好。“健康通胀”也是如此。什么是“糟糕”的？低通胀？好吧，确实如此，因为税收收入会减少，企业难以实现增长。然而，在这样的环境中，普通人可能过得更好。
这一切都取决于你关注的是哪一群人。传统的经济学观念并非为了你我和普通大众的利益服务，恰恰相反。
另外，你在比较纽约和东京房价时再次忽视了一个要点，或者至少是以一种肤浅且不诚实的方式看待何为好或坏。日本人自始至终习惯于居住在较小的空间中，即使在20世纪50年代也是如此；而在纽约，人们历来住得比日本人大。东京人并未因降低标准或负担不起而突然开始住小房子，他们依旧享受着一直以来的生活品质，生活水平并没有改变。
相比之下，在纽约和伦敦等地的人们不得不与其他众多陌生人合租才能勉强负担得起住所，并且在生活成本上的支出比例相较于过去也有所增加，这是生活质量大幅下滑的体现。
你不能轻描淡写这些现实问题，伙计。你对经济学的看法过于理想化且经过净化处理，只看到这些观念对少数群体的好处，而不是关注到大多数普通人的真实情况。
美国经济规模几乎扩大了6倍，但普通民众的生活水平变化如何？是否也提升了6倍？答案是否定的，实际情况是生活水平其实变差了。
我完全不同意这个观点。实际上，美国的贫困率下降了20%，扣除通货膨胀后的可支配收入增加了68%，尽管人们的工作时间缩短了，住房面积平均增大了30%，而且现在大家能接触到更多商品、家电、科技产品和信息资源。按照何种客观标准来衡量，现在的美国生活水平比1994年更差呢？
The US economy is almost 6x larger than then, but how has the average persons standard of living changed? Is it 6x better? No. It is actually worse. Quite noticeably. Japans economy? Stayed roughly the same, yet peoples standards of living has also stayed the same as it was back then. A big contrast(no im not boiling it down that much, but obviously the environment leading to the growth versus stagnation have had effects on standard of living which is my point. Woo-hoo house prices are 3x from 1990 alone which doubles the economy!! We are all better off! / sarcasm).
My point here is what benefits average people. I dont give a crap if corporations are 6x bigger if the average person has it worse. This is what i hate about economics in general but especially people who love to talk about it like it is all beneficial. Benefits to who? 6x larger economy? Great for corporations and government tax. “Healthy inflation”? The same. What is “bad”? Low inflation? Well sure. Tax revenue will be down and corporations struggle to grow. Meanwhile the average person can do better in such environments.
It is all a matter of who you are focusing on. Conventional ideas in economics are not for the benefit of you or me, they are the opposite
Also, again something you completely miss at best or are disingenuous with at worst with basic armchair ideas of what is good or bad is your comparison of home costs from New York to Tokyo. People in Tokyo have ALWAYS lived in small places. in the 1950s the same. People in New york have always lived in bigger places than Japan. People did not suddenly start living in smaller places here in Tokyo due to lowered standards and unaffordable. They still get what they always have. Their standard of living has not changed.
Meanwhile people in Places like nee york and london have to these larger spaces with many other strangers to be able to afford anywhere to live at all, while also spending a higher proportion of wages than in the past. Thats a dramatic drop in standards.
You cant gloss over shit like that mate. You have a really naïve sanitised view of economics from the view of the few these ideas benefit and definitely not the average person@oren0
The US economy is almost 6x larger than then, but how has the average persons standard of living changed? Is it 6x better? No. It is actually worse.
I completely disagree, actually. Poverty is down 20%, disposable income inflation-adjusted is up 68% despite people working shorter hours, homes are 30% larger, and there is far more access to goods, appliances, technology, and information.
By what obxtive metric is the US standard of living worse now than it was in 1994?
美国经济规模几乎是当时的6倍，但普通民众的生活水平是否也提高了6倍呢？答案是否定的，实际上生活质量反而有所下降，这一点相当明显。日本经济虽然保持大致不变，但民众的生活水平与当时相比也维持在同一水平。这是一个鲜明的对比（我并不是简单地归结为这样，但显然经济增长与停滞背后的各种环境因素确实对生活水平产生了影响，这是我想表达的观点。欢呼吧，仅从1990年起房价就涨了3倍，这使经济总量翻了一番！我们都过得更好了！/讽刺）。
我的观点是关注什么真正惠及普通人。如果公司规模增长6倍，而普通人的境况却变得更糟，那么我对这种增长毫不关心。这是我对经济学不满的地方，尤其是那些喜欢谈论它如何有益的人。对谁有益？经济规模扩大6倍？这对企业和政府税收当然很好。“健康通胀”也是如此。什么是“糟糕”的？低通胀？好吧，确实如此，因为税收收入会减少，企业难以实现增长。然而，在这样的环境中，普通人可能过得更好。
这一切都取决于你关注的是哪一群人。传统的经济学观念并非为了你我和普通大众的利益服务，恰恰相反。
另外，你在比较纽约和东京房价时再次忽视了一个要点，或者至少是以一种肤浅且不诚实的方式看待何为好或坏。日本人自始至终习惯于居住在较小的空间中，即使在20世纪50年代也是如此；而在纽约，人们历来住得比日本人大。东京人并未因降低标准或负担不起而突然开始住小房子，他们依旧享受着一直以来的生活品质，生活水平并没有改变。
相比之下，在纽约和伦敦等地的人们不得不与其他众多陌生人合租才能勉强负担得起住所，并且在生活成本上的支出比例相较于过去也有所增加，这是生活质量大幅下滑的体现。
你不能轻描淡写这些现实问题，伙计。你对经济学的看法过于理想化且经过净化处理，只看到这些观念对少数群体的好处，而不是关注到大多数普通人的真实情况。
美国经济规模几乎扩大了6倍，但普通民众的生活水平变化如何？是否也提升了6倍？答案是否定的，实际情况是生活水平其实变差了。
我完全不同意这个观点。实际上，美国的贫困率下降了20%，扣除通货膨胀后的可支配收入增加了68%，尽管人们的工作时间缩短了，住房面积平均增大了30%，而且现在大家能接触到更多商品、家电、科技产品和信息资源。按照何种客观标准来衡量，现在的美国生活水平比1994年更差呢？
@valeyard89
yes standard of living has improved. People in the 80s/90s didn't have uber eats/internet/cell phones/cable/subscxtions(other than magazine/newspapers). Going out to eat or international vacations was a luxury.
There's 100 million more people in the US now though. So land/housing has gone up considerably as there is more demand but no new land.
New York standard of living has improved considerably over 100 years. Ask immigrants living back then 10 to a room on east side tenemenets
是的，生活水平确实有所提高。在80年代和90年代，人们还没有优步外卖、互联网、手机、有线电视以及各种订阅服务（除了杂志和报纸）。外出就餐或国际旅行是一种奢侈享受。
不过现在美国的人口比那时多了1亿多，因此随着需求增加但土地资源并未增多，房地产和住房价格大幅上涨。
过去100年里，纽约的生活水平有了显著改善。你可以问问那时候住在东区公寓里，10人挤一间房的移民们，就能明白这一点。
yes standard of living has improved. People in the 80s/90s didn't have uber eats/internet/cell phones/cable/subscxtions(other than magazine/newspapers). Going out to eat or international vacations was a luxury.
There's 100 million more people in the US now though. So land/housing has gone up considerably as there is more demand but no new land.
New York standard of living has improved considerably over 100 years. Ask immigrants living back then 10 to a room on east side tenemenets
是的，生活水平确实有所提高。在80年代和90年代，人们还没有优步外卖、互联网、手机、有线电视以及各种订阅服务（除了杂志和报纸）。外出就餐或国际旅行是一种奢侈享受。
不过现在美国的人口比那时多了1亿多，因此随着需求增加但土地资源并未增多，房地产和住房价格大幅上涨。
过去100年里，纽约的生活水平有了显著改善。你可以问问那时候住在东区公寓里，10人挤一间房的移民们，就能明白这一点。
@hewkii2
You’re assuming the two are connected. Japan has lower cost of housing because it has a better ratio of supply to demand.
In a deflation economy, I as a land owner have less motivation to develop property because it will become more valuable over time by doing nothing. The fact that Japan has avoided that is due to policies and cultural factors (ie a shrinking population), not deflation.
您是假设这两者之间存在关联。日本的住房成本较低，是因为其供应与需求之间的比例更为合理。
在通缩经济中，作为土地所有者，我开发房地产的动力会减弱，因为随着时间推移，即使不采取任何行动，房产价值也会自然增加。而日本能够避免这种情况，主要是由于政策和文化因素（如人口减少）的作用，而不是由于通缩。
You’re assuming the two are connected. Japan has lower cost of housing because it has a better ratio of supply to demand.
In a deflation economy, I as a land owner have less motivation to develop property because it will become more valuable over time by doing nothing. The fact that Japan has avoided that is due to policies and cultural factors (ie a shrinking population), not deflation.
您是假设这两者之间存在关联。日本的住房成本较低，是因为其供应与需求之间的比例更为合理。
在通缩经济中，作为土地所有者，我开发房地产的动力会减弱，因为随着时间推移，即使不采取任何行动，房产价值也会自然增加。而日本能够避免这种情况，主要是由于政策和文化因素（如人口减少）的作用，而不是由于通缩。
@bagonmaster
You say that as if there isn’t a lack of development and a housing crisis in places like the US…
您这么讲，就好像是在说美国等地不存在发展滞后和住房危机一样……
You say that as if there isn’t a lack of development and a housing crisis in places like the US…
您这么讲，就好像是在说美国等地不存在发展滞后和住房危机一样……
@hewkii2
Yes, because property values are increasing without landowners having to do anything.
是的，因为即使土地所有者不采取任何行动，房产价值也会持续上涨。
Yes, because property values are increasing without landowners having to do anything.
是的，因为即使土地所有者不采取任何行动，房产价值也会持续上涨。
@bagonmaster
So you agree that’s what’s causing the issue and not inflation/deflation?
所以您认为造成这一问题的原因是房产价值的自然增长，而非通胀/通缩？
So you agree that’s what’s causing the issue and not inflation/deflation?
所以您认为造成这一问题的原因是房产价值的自然增长，而非通胀/通缩？
@valeyard89
there's 100 million more people now in the US than in the 1980s, that is a lot of demand to drive up prices.
现在美国的人口比1980年代多了1亿，这意味着有大量的需求推高了价格。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
there's 100 million more people now in the US than in the 1980s, that is a lot of demand to drive up prices.
现在美国的人口比1980年代多了1亿，这意味着有大量的需求推高了价格。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@bagonmaster
It seems to be the default with inflation. The only deflationary economy isn’t experiencing it
看起来通胀环境中房价上涨才是常态。目前唯一经历通缩的经济体并未出现这种现象。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
It seems to be the default with inflation. The only deflationary economy isn’t experiencing it
看起来通胀环境中房价上涨才是常态。目前唯一经历通缩的经济体并未出现这种现象。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@LaconicGirth
I think it’s more that japans population is decreasing and most other countries it’s increasing
我认为更多的是因为日本的人口在减少，而大多数其他国家的人口却在增加。
I think it’s more that japans population is decreasing and most other countries it’s increasing
我认为更多的是因为日本的人口在减少，而大多数其他国家的人口却在增加。
@bagonmaster
That’s mostly due to their strict immigration policies most of the developed world is facing declining birth rates. If the trend holds as more of the world develops we’ll reach the point of globally declining population and places like Japan will become the norm rather than the exception
这在很大程度上是由于日本严格的移民政策导致的，但事实上，大多数发达国家都面临着生育率下降的问题。如果随着更多国家的发展这一趋势持续下去，全球人口将可能达到整体下降的阶段，届时像日本这样的情况将会成为常态而非例外。
That’s mostly due to their strict immigration policies most of the developed world is facing declining birth rates. If the trend holds as more of the world develops we’ll reach the point of globally declining population and places like Japan will become the norm rather than the exception
这在很大程度上是由于日本严格的移民政策导致的，但事实上，大多数发达国家都面临着生育率下降的问题。如果随着更多国家的发展这一趋势持续下去，全球人口将可能达到整体下降的阶段，届时像日本这样的情况将会成为常态而非例外。
@Acerhand
This is my point. In reality it doesn’t go by text books. There are always more factors.
Also your example is backwards. Land appreciates in an inflationary environment and depreciates in a deflationary environment even though it theoretically is worth the same in both. Even that example is meaningless because things dont worn in vacuum like that.
My point is Japan has held a much better standard of living for average people for decades compared to places like the US/UK which by contrast have had a non stop never ending fall in standards of living to wages for normal people.
我所指出的是，在现实中情况并非完全遵循教科书。总是有更多的因素在起作用。
另外，您的例子实际上是反向的。土地在通胀环境中会增值，在通缩环境中则会贬值，尽管理论上两者中土地的价值应该相同。即便如此，这个例子也是无意义的，因为在现实世界中事物并不会像真空中的那样运作。
我的观点是，日本几十年来一直保持着比美国、英国等国家更好的平均生活水平。相比之下，这些国家普通民众的生活水平与工资之间的关系一直在持续下滑，生活质量不断降低。
This is my point. In reality it doesn’t go by text books. There are always more factors.
Also your example is backwards. Land appreciates in an inflationary environment and depreciates in a deflationary environment even though it theoretically is worth the same in both. Even that example is meaningless because things dont worn in vacuum like that.
My point is Japan has held a much better standard of living for average people for decades compared to places like the US/UK which by contrast have had a non stop never ending fall in standards of living to wages for normal people.
我所指出的是，在现实中情况并非完全遵循教科书。总是有更多的因素在起作用。
另外，您的例子实际上是反向的。土地在通胀环境中会增值，在通缩环境中则会贬值，尽管理论上两者中土地的价值应该相同。即便如此，这个例子也是无意义的，因为在现实世界中事物并不会像真空中的那样运作。
我的观点是，日本几十年来一直保持着比美国、英国等国家更好的平均生活水平。相比之下，这些国家普通民众的生活水平与工资之间的关系一直在持续下滑，生活质量不断降低。
@SomewhereAggressive8
Saying Japan is better off than other countries is not an argument against inflation. That’s such a foolish argument that it’s laughable.
说日本比其他国家富裕并不是反对通货膨胀的论据。这种愚蠢的论点令人啼笑皆非。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Saying Japan is better off than other countries is not an argument against inflation. That’s such a foolish argument that it’s laughable.
说日本比其他国家富裕并不是反对通货膨胀的论据。这种愚蠢的论点令人啼笑皆非。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@Acerhand
It is not a foolish argument. Saying that we must always have healthy inflation is the best for people is foolish. Its not true. It doesn’t benefit you or me. It benefits the corporations, tax collectors and ultra wealthy. Minimal inflation is better for average people.
这不是一个愚蠢的论点。说我们必须始终保持健康的通胀才是对人们最好的，这种说法是愚蠢的。这不是真的。它对你我都没有好处。它有利于公司、收税人和超级富豪。最低限度的通货膨胀对普通人更有利。
It is not a foolish argument. Saying that we must always have healthy inflation is the best for people is foolish. Its not true. It doesn’t benefit you or me. It benefits the corporations, tax collectors and ultra wealthy. Minimal inflation is better for average people.
这不是一个愚蠢的论点。说我们必须始终保持健康的通胀才是对人们最好的，这种说法是愚蠢的。这不是真的。它对你我都没有好处。它有利于公司、收税人和超级富豪。最低限度的通货膨胀对普通人更有利。
@SomewhereAggressive8
I mean, healthy inflation and minimal inflation are the same thing depending on how you define them. It’s pretty established that 2% is the target and that’s what Japan is trying to achieve.
我的意思是，健康通胀和最低限度的通胀其实是同一个概念，这完全取决于你怎么定义它们。普遍认为2%是目标通胀率，并且这也是日本正在努力实现的。
I mean, healthy inflation and minimal inflation are the same thing depending on how you define them. It’s pretty established that 2% is the target and that’s what Japan is trying to achieve.
我的意思是，健康通胀和最低限度的通胀其实是同一个概念，这完全取决于你怎么定义它们。普遍认为2%是目标通胀率，并且这也是日本正在努力实现的。
@Ansuz07
Japan, between 1991 and 2001. Google "Japan's Lost Decade"
日本在1991年至2001年期间就是这样一个例子。你可以搜索“日本失去的十年”来了解相关情况。
Japan, between 1991 and 2001. Google "Japan's Lost Decade"
日本在1991年至2001年期间就是这样一个例子。你可以搜索“日本失去的十年”来了解相关情况。
@Ansuz07
Yup. Many argue that the current economic issues with Japan are just a continuation of the same crisis from 1991 - the Japanese government didn't solve it, but rather just masked it for a time.
没错。许多人认为日本当前的经济问题其实是1991年危机的延续——日本政府并未真正解决这个问题，而是在一段时间内将其掩盖了起来。
Yup. Many argue that the current economic issues with Japan are just a continuation of the same crisis from 1991 - the Japanese government didn't solve it, but rather just masked it for a time.
没错。许多人认为日本当前的经济问题其实是1991年危机的延续——日本政府并未真正解决这个问题，而是在一段时间内将其掩盖了起来。
@Zimlun
Additionally, consumers are motivated to wait as long as possible to make any purchase, as the purchase will be less expensive the longer they wait.
This is a point I have a lot of trouble understanding.
Currently people will go into debt and pay interest on that debt so that they can buy a thing they want now instead of later. They could easily wait, save up their money, then buy it outright for less money total... But they don't, they buy it right away with borrowed money, and end up paying more than they would if they had just waited.
I guess what I don't get is why that behavior would change if there was deflation, since it seems like people generally don't want to wait to buy the things they desire, even if doing so results in them spending less money.
另外，消费者有动力尽可能长时间地推迟购买任何商品，因为他们等待的时间越长，购买时的价格就越便宜。 这一点我很难理解。 现在，人们会愿意承担债务并支付利息，以便能立刻购买他们想要的东西，而不是等到以后再买。理论上，他们本可以轻松地选择等待、积攒足够的钱，然后直接以更低的总价购买……但他们并没有这么做，而是选择了立刻用借来的钱购买，结果最终付出的钱比他们耐心等待后要多。
我想我不明白的是，在通缩情况下，为什么这种行为会发生改变，因为即便等待会导致花费更少的钱，但通常人们似乎都不愿等待购买自己渴望的商品。
Additionally, consumers are motivated to wait as long as possible to make any purchase, as the purchase will be less expensive the longer they wait.
This is a point I have a lot of trouble understanding.
Currently people will go into debt and pay interest on that debt so that they can buy a thing they want now instead of later. They could easily wait, save up their money, then buy it outright for less money total... But they don't, they buy it right away with borrowed money, and end up paying more than they would if they had just waited.
I guess what I don't get is why that behavior would change if there was deflation, since it seems like people generally don't want to wait to buy the things they desire, even if doing so results in them spending less money.
另外，消费者有动力尽可能长时间地推迟购买任何商品，因为他们等待的时间越长，购买时的价格就越便宜。 这一点我很难理解。 现在，人们会愿意承担债务并支付利息，以便能立刻购买他们想要的东西，而不是等到以后再买。理论上，他们本可以轻松地选择等待、积攒足够的钱，然后直接以更低的总价购买……但他们并没有这么做，而是选择了立刻用借来的钱购买，结果最终付出的钱比他们耐心等待后要多。
我想我不明白的是，在通缩情况下，为什么这种行为会发生改变，因为即便等待会导致花费更少的钱，但通常人们似乎都不愿等待购买自己渴望的商品。
@meowisaymiaou
Yet, people still spend in Japan.
Businesses still are created, and grow.
And prices of most goods, food, and services are much, much, more reasonable having not increased in absolute dollar amount in a long time.
The quality of goods made in japan, generally is increasing; people buy less, so quality goes up, encouraging the "buy for many years/life" mentality of what is a good product. There is less drive for corporate greed, and milking the customer. Many times, fee and add-ons are at cost, adding USD0.30, or USD 1.20 for services and addons that in the US would normally be +US$5 or +US$10 or more.
Combined with housing being a depreciating asset with legal value set to $0 after 20 years, passing money to children for renovations, or moving is more valuable. The money doesn't lose worth. Companies don't need to raise prices to offset raises for all employees solely to "match inflation".
然而，在日本，人们仍在消费。
企业仍在创立并不断成长。
并且大多数商品、食品和服务的价格非常合理，因为长期以来其绝对金额并未上涨。
日本制造的商品质量普遍在提高；人们购买量减少，因此品质提升，这进一步鼓励了“购买耐用、高质量产品”的理念。追求企业贪婪和过度榨取消费者的需求减弱了，很多时候，附加费用和服务费都是按成本定价，比如添加0.3美元或1.2美元的服务和额外选项，在美国通常会加收5美元、10美元甚至更多。
此外，由于房产被视为一项20年后法定价值降为零的贬值资产，将资金用于子女装修或搬家更具价值，这样钱不会失去购买力。企业无需为了“匹配通胀”而给所有员工涨薪后就相应提高价格。
Yet, people still spend in Japan.
Businesses still are created, and grow.
And prices of most goods, food, and services are much, much, more reasonable having not increased in absolute dollar amount in a long time.
The quality of goods made in japan, generally is increasing; people buy less, so quality goes up, encouraging the "buy for many years/life" mentality of what is a good product. There is less drive for corporate greed, and milking the customer. Many times, fee and add-ons are at cost, adding USD0.30, or USD 1.20 for services and addons that in the US would normally be +US$5 or +US$10 or more.
Combined with housing being a depreciating asset with legal value set to $0 after 20 years, passing money to children for renovations, or moving is more valuable. The money doesn't lose worth. Companies don't need to raise prices to offset raises for all employees solely to "match inflation".
然而，在日本，人们仍在消费。
企业仍在创立并不断成长。
并且大多数商品、食品和服务的价格非常合理，因为长期以来其绝对金额并未上涨。
日本制造的商品质量普遍在提高；人们购买量减少，因此品质提升，这进一步鼓励了“购买耐用、高质量产品”的理念。追求企业贪婪和过度榨取消费者的需求减弱了，很多时候，附加费用和服务费都是按成本定价，比如添加0.3美元或1.2美元的服务和额外选项，在美国通常会加收5美元、10美元甚至更多。
此外，由于房产被视为一项20年后法定价值降为零的贬值资产，将资金用于子女装修或搬家更具价值，这样钱不会失去购买力。企业无需为了“匹配通胀”而给所有员工涨薪后就相应提高价格。
@OkTower4998
I read this theory several times but I wonder if it really happened in real life. For one thing , I don't think people will stop purchasing stuff. You will still need to buy food, clothes, fuel. You still need to go to work, spend money on restaurant etc. Just because 100$ will have value of 101$ NEXT YEAR, I won't stop all my purchases.
我多次读到这个理论，但我怀疑它是否真的在现实生活中发生过。首先，我不认为人们会停止购买物品。你仍然需要购买食物、衣服、燃料等必需品。你仍需要上班，需要在餐厅消费等。仅仅因为100美元明年可能会增值到相当于101美元，并不意味着我会因此停止所有购买行为。
I read this theory several times but I wonder if it really happened in real life. For one thing , I don't think people will stop purchasing stuff. You will still need to buy food, clothes, fuel. You still need to go to work, spend money on restaurant etc. Just because 100$ will have value of 101$ NEXT YEAR, I won't stop all my purchases.
我多次读到这个理论，但我怀疑它是否真的在现实生活中发生过。首先，我不认为人们会停止购买物品。你仍然需要购买食物、衣服、燃料等必需品。你仍需要上班，需要在餐厅消费等。仅仅因为100美元明年可能会增值到相当于101美元，并不意味着我会因此停止所有购买行为。
@Ansuz07
It isn't that people stop purchasing, but more that they delay purchasing as long as possible. People will buy things at the last possible moment; yes, things like food and gas will continue but those are not a huge part of the larger economy, and if you work in an industry where purchases are even slightly discretionary (like most of us) then those industries will be severely impacted.
这并不是说人们会停止购买，而更多的是他们会尽可能长时间地推迟购买。人们会在最后一刻才进行购买；的确，像食物和汽油这类必需品的消费会持续下去，但它们在整体经济中占比并不大。如果你所在行业的商品或服务具有哪怕一丝可选性（就像我们大多数人的情况），那么这些行业将会受到严重影响。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
It isn't that people stop purchasing, but more that they delay purchasing as long as possible. People will buy things at the last possible moment; yes, things like food and gas will continue but those are not a huge part of the larger economy, and if you work in an industry where purchases are even slightly discretionary (like most of us) then those industries will be severely impacted.
这并不是说人们会停止购买，而更多的是他们会尽可能长时间地推迟购买。人们会在最后一刻才进行购买；的确，像食物和汽油这类必需品的消费会持续下去，但它们在整体经济中占比并不大。如果你所在行业的商品或服务具有哪怕一丝可选性（就像我们大多数人的情况），那么这些行业将会受到严重影响。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@OkTower4998
Like I said, if deflation is like %100 then ok I'll wait. But if it's like %1-2, I don't think anyone will delay their purchase. Even if I'm buying a house, I'll buy it when I can.
正如我所说，如果通缩幅度达到100%，那么我会选择等待。但如果通缩率只有1%-2%，我不认为会有多少人会因此推迟购买。即使我要买房子，也会在有能力时立即购买。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Like I said, if deflation is like %100 then ok I'll wait. But if it's like %1-2, I don't think anyone will delay their purchase. Even if I'm buying a house, I'll buy it when I can.
正如我所说，如果通缩幅度达到100%，那么我会选择等待。但如果通缩率只有1%-2%，我不认为会有多少人会因此推迟购买。即使我要买房子，也会在有能力时立即购买。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@Ansuz07
Maybe you won't, but enough people will. Knowing your $300k home will cost $294k next year is enough of a motivator for people to cause impact.
Individuals may buck macro-economic trends, but that doesn't mean the trends don't happen.
或许你不会，但会有足够多的人会这么做。知道你的30万美元的房子明年可能只卖29.4万美元，这足以成为促使人们采取行动的动力。
个人行为可能会与宏观经济趋势背道而驰，但这并不意味着这些趋势没有发生。
Maybe you won't, but enough people will. Knowing your $300k home will cost $294k next year is enough of a motivator for people to cause impact.
Individuals may buck macro-economic trends, but that doesn't mean the trends don't happen.
或许你不会，但会有足够多的人会这么做。知道你的30万美元的房子明年可能只卖29.4万美元，这足以成为促使人们采取行动的动力。
个人行为可能会与宏观经济趋势背道而驰，但这并不意味着这些趋势没有发生。
@OkTower4998
That's why I was asking if this really happened in real life. This theory was formulated ages ago, before we had much different spending behaviors. I take it a bit grain of salt that same thing would happen today in a modern society.
这就是为什么我询问这个现象是否真的在现实生活中发生过。这一理论是很久以前形成的，那时候人们的消费行为与现在大不相同。对于同样的事情是否会发生在现代社会，我会持保留态度。
That's why I was asking if this really happened in real life. This theory was formulated ages ago, before we had much different spending behaviors. I take it a bit grain of salt that same thing would happen today in a modern society.
这就是为什么我询问这个现象是否真的在现实生活中发生过。这一理论是很久以前形成的，那时候人们的消费行为与现在大不相同。对于同样的事情是否会发生在现代社会，我会持保留态度。
@Ansuz07
Have you never waited to buy something because you want to see if it goes on sale in a few weeks/months? Consumers delay purchasing all the time because they expect prices to drop.
你难道从未因为想等几周或几个月后看看是否会打折而推迟购买某样东西吗？消费者经常推迟购买，因为他们预期价格会下降。
Have you never waited to buy something because you want to see if it goes on sale in a few weeks/months? Consumers delay purchasing all the time because they expect prices to drop.
你难道从未因为想等几周或几个月后看看是否会打折而推迟购买某样东西吗？消费者经常推迟购买，因为他们预期价格会下降。
@Ansuz07
Some will, some won't. An individual consumer may not care if a shirt drops from $20 to $19, but a business may care that a $100k investment will only cost $98k.
As I said before, individual behavior will vary, but macro-trends remain.
有些人会等待，有些人则不会。对于个体消费者而言，一件衬衫从20美元降到19美元可能无关紧要，但对于企业来说，一笔10万美元的投资只需花费9.8万美元却可能是重要的考量。
正如我之前所说，个体行为会有差异，但宏观趋势依然存在。
Some will, some won't. An individual consumer may not care if a shirt drops from $20 to $19, but a business may care that a $100k investment will only cost $98k.
As I said before, individual behavior will vary, but macro-trends remain.
有些人会等待，有些人则不会。对于个体消费者而言，一件衬衫从20美元降到19美元可能无关紧要，但对于企业来说，一笔10万美元的投资只需花费9.8万美元却可能是重要的考量。
正如我之前所说，个体行为会有差异，但宏观趋势依然存在。
@Prasiatko
It's not so much consumers who as you say have to eat but businesses. No point spending money to build that new factory and employ people when the equipment will be cheaper next year. That's if you even bother investing since in deflation keeping the millions needed in a vault would make you richer and richer every year.
正如你所说，受影响更多的是企业而非消费者，毕竟消费者需要生活必需品。但如果预期到明年设备会更便宜，那么当下就没有必要花钱去新建工厂并雇佣人员了。而且，在通缩环境下，即使你有投资的意愿，也会发现将数百万资金存入保险柜，每年都会让你变得更富有，因为货币购买力在逐年增加，这样一来，投资的积极性就大大降低了。
It's not so much consumers who as you say have to eat but businesses. No point spending money to build that new factory and employ people when the equipment will be cheaper next year. That's if you even bother investing since in deflation keeping the millions needed in a vault would make you richer and richer every year.
正如你所说，受影响更多的是企业而非消费者，毕竟消费者需要生活必需品。但如果预期到明年设备会更便宜，那么当下就没有必要花钱去新建工厂并雇佣人员了。而且，在通缩环境下，即使你有投资的意愿，也会发现将数百万资金存入保险柜，每年都会让你变得更富有，因为货币购买力在逐年增加，这样一来，投资的积极性就大大降低了。
@OkTower4998
Not really, I mean I don't think so.
You plan on spending 100k to start a business with goal of making, let's say %20 profit. If you delay your initiative to next year because there's %2 deflation, you'll be losing %18 of profit. Numbers are rough of course, I just don't think anything would happen with a small deflation.
实际上并非如此，我的意思是我不认为会发生这种情况。
假设你计划投资10万美元创业，并期望获得大约20%的利润。如果你因为有2%的通缩而将启动计划推迟到明年，那么你可能会损失掉原本18%的利润（这里数字只是粗略估算）。总之，我认为小额通缩并不会造成太大影响，不足以让人因此推迟投资和商业活动。
Not really, I mean I don't think so.
You plan on spending 100k to start a business with goal of making, let's say %20 profit. If you delay your initiative to next year because there's %2 deflation, you'll be losing %18 of profit. Numbers are rough of course, I just don't think anything would happen with a small deflation.
实际上并非如此，我的意思是我不认为会发生这种情况。
假设你计划投资10万美元创业，并期望获得大约20%的利润。如果你因为有2%的通缩而将启动计划推迟到明年，那么你可能会损失掉原本18%的利润（这里数字只是粗略估算）。总之，我认为小额通缩并不会造成太大影响，不足以让人因此推迟投资和商业活动。
@Prasiatko
No the profit margin would stay the same. Both costs and potential revenue would drop.
不，利润率会保持不变。因为成本和潜在收入都会下降。
No the profit margin would stay the same. Both costs and potential revenue would drop.
不，利润率会保持不变。因为成本和潜在收入都会下降。
@OkTower4998
Yes, it would stay same but it won't happen since you decided to delay your business. Just because it will be %1 more profitable next year, you're telling me people would just stop working and sit idly? Doesn't make sense to me.
You'd still go ahead with your business, accepting that it will be slightly more expensive this year than next year.
是的，利润率保持不变，但如果因为决定推迟启动业务，那么你实际上并没有抓住今年的机会。仅仅因为明年可能会有1%的额外利润，你就认为人们会停止工作、无所事事吗？这在我看来并不合理。
你应该还是会继续开展你的业务，接受今年的成本会比明年稍微高一些这个事实。
Yes, it would stay same but it won't happen since you decided to delay your business. Just because it will be %1 more profitable next year, you're telling me people would just stop working and sit idly? Doesn't make sense to me.
You'd still go ahead with your business, accepting that it will be slightly more expensive this year than next year.
是的，利润率保持不变，但如果因为决定推迟启动业务，那么你实际上并没有抓住今年的机会。仅仅因为明年可能会有1%的额外利润，你就认为人们会停止工作、无所事事吗？这在我看来并不合理。
你应该还是会继续开展你的业务，接受今年的成本会比明年稍微高一些这个事实。
@Karirsu
Sounds like something that is bad for the capitalist system, but good for the working class. They would still buy things that they need, but consume less things that they don't.
这听起来像是对资本主义体系不利，但对工人阶级有利的情况。在这种情况下，人们仍然会购买他们必需的东西，但会减少购买非必需品的消费。
Sounds like something that is bad for the capitalist system, but good for the working class. They would still buy things that they need, but consume less things that they don't.
这听起来像是对资本主义体系不利，但对工人阶级有利的情况。在这种情况下，人们仍然会购买他们必需的东西，但会减少购买非必需品的消费。
@Ansuz07
Not really - if people aren't buying goods at the same rate, the workers get laid off and can't buy things at all.
并非如此——如果人们不再以同样的速度购买商品，那么工人将会被解雇，根本无法购买任何东西。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Not really - if people aren't buying goods at the same rate, the workers get laid off and can't buy things at all.
并非如此——如果人们不再以同样的速度购买商品，那么工人将会被解雇，根本无法购买任何东西。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@bagonmaster
If that were true we’d be seeing it in Japan…
如果这是真的，我们应当在日本看到这种情况。
If that were true we’d be seeing it in Japan…
如果这是真的，我们应当在日本看到这种情况。
@Ansuz07
Japan's issues are being offset by population decline.
日本的问题在一定程度上被人口减少所抵消了。
Japan's issues are being offset by population decline.
日本的问题在一定程度上被人口减少所抵消了。
@bagonmaster
You say that like the US and other western countries aren’t also seeing a slow in birth rates
你这么说是好像美国和其他西方国家并未经历出生率下降的现象，但实际上这些国家也在面临出生率放缓的问题。
You say that like the US and other western countries aren’t also seeing a slow in birth rates
你这么说是好像美国和其他西方国家并未经历出生率下降的现象，但实际上这些国家也在面临出生率放缓的问题。
@Ansuz07
We are, but we are not seeing population decline because those lower birth rates are offset by immigration.
Japan is somewhat unique in that they have next to no immigration.
确实，美国和其他西方国家也出现了出生率下降的情况，但并未出现人口减少的现象，因为这些较低的出生率被移民抵消了。
而日本在这方面较为独特，其几乎不存在移民现象。
We are, but we are not seeing population decline because those lower birth rates are offset by immigration.
Japan is somewhat unique in that they have next to no immigration.
确实，美国和其他西方国家也出现了出生率下降的情况，但并未出现人口减少的现象，因为这些较低的出生率被移民抵消了。
而日本在这方面较为独特，其几乎不存在移民现象。
@bagonmaster
Which is a policy that could be replicated elsewhere
这是一个可以在其他地方复制的政策。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Which is a policy that could be replicated elsewhere
这是一个可以在其他地方复制的政策。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@Ansuz07
What policy? Population decline isn't a policy.
The point is that Japan's economy is suffering - that suffering is just being masked by a decreasing population. That isn't sustainable long term.
什么政策？人口减少并不是一种政策。
要点是日本经济正在遭受困境，而这种困境在一定程度上被人口下降所掩盖。然而这并非长期可持续的解决方案。
What policy? Population decline isn't a policy.
The point is that Japan's economy is suffering - that suffering is just being masked by a decreasing population. That isn't sustainable long term.
什么政策？人口减少并不是一种政策。
要点是日本经济正在遭受困境，而这种困境在一定程度上被人口下降所掩盖。然而这并非长期可持续的解决方案。
@bagonmaster
I don’t think most people in Japan would agree their economy is suffering
我不认为大多数日本人会认为他们的经济正在遭受困境。
I don’t think most people in Japan would agree their economy is suffering
我不认为大多数日本人会认为他们的经济正在遭受困境。
@valeyard89
The US population has increased 30% (100 million) since 1980s. Japans population is the same as the 80s.... It. peaked in 2010 and has been in decline.
自1980年代以来，美国的人口增长了30%（即增加了1亿人）。而日本的人口则与80年代时持平……其人口数量在2010年达到峰值后开始下降。
The US population has increased 30% (100 million) since 1980s. Japans population is the same as the 80s.... It. peaked in 2010 and has been in decline.
自1980年代以来，美国的人口增长了30%（即增加了1亿人）。而日本的人口则与80年代时持平……其人口数量在2010年达到峰值后开始下降。
@Karirsu
But bacause of deflation and low housing costs they are much less reliant on employment anyway
但由于通缩和较低的住房成本，日本民众在很大程度上对就业的依赖程度降低了。
But bacause of deflation and low housing costs they are much less reliant on employment anyway
但由于通缩和较低的住房成本，日本民众在很大程度上对就业的依赖程度降低了。
@magik110
Why is stagflation worse than inflation in your opinion? If someone keeps money in their coffee can but goods are more or less the same price over time, they might as well spend it anyway thus maintaining the status quo no?
If 100k usd in 1990 has the same purchasing power as in 2010, and wages, prices, and interest rates stay the same, then we just cruise along a neutral path in my head. Why is this bad? Or is greed/something else a component?
在您看来，滞胀为何比通胀更糟糕？如果有人把钱存放在咖啡罐里，但随着时间推移商品价格基本保持不变，那么他们可能还是会去消费，从而维持现状，不是吗？
假设1990年的10万美元与2010年具有相同的购买力，并且工资、物价和利率都保持不变，在我看来，这就像在中性路径上平稳运行。为什么这种情况是不好的呢？或者说贪婪或其他因素在其中起作用吗？
Why is stagflation worse than inflation in your opinion? If someone keeps money in their coffee can but goods are more or less the same price over time, they might as well spend it anyway thus maintaining the status quo no?
If 100k usd in 1990 has the same purchasing power as in 2010, and wages, prices, and interest rates stay the same, then we just cruise along a neutral path in my head. Why is this bad? Or is greed/something else a component?
在您看来，滞胀为何比通胀更糟糕？如果有人把钱存放在咖啡罐里，但随着时间推移商品价格基本保持不变，那么他们可能还是会去消费，从而维持现状，不是吗？
假设1990年的10万美元与2010年具有相同的购买力，并且工资、物价和利率都保持不变，在我看来，这就像在中性路径上平稳运行。为什么这种情况是不好的呢？或者说贪婪或其他因素在其中起作用吗？
@Scavenger53
What happens if the population is shrinking, would it not help to keep the monetary system in line with population growth and shrinkage? So as population increases, so should inflation, but as the population shrinks, would deflation still kill the economy?
如果人口正在减少，那么根据人口增长和缩减来调整货币体系不是有助于保持一致吗？也就是说，随着人口增加，通胀也应该适度上升；但当人口缩减时，通缩是否仍然会破坏经济呢？
What happens if the population is shrinking, would it not help to keep the monetary system in line with population growth and shrinkage? So as population increases, so should inflation, but as the population shrinks, would deflation still kill the economy?
如果人口正在减少，那么根据人口增长和缩减来调整货币体系不是有助于保持一致吗？也就是说，随着人口增加，通胀也应该适度上升；但当人口缩减时，通缩是否仍然会破坏经济呢？
@aid3n0
“Consumers are motivated to wait as long as possible to make any purchase, as the purchase will be less expensive the longer they wait”
I just don’t get this concept. If I want something I buy it now, if I can afford it now I get it now, if I can’t afford it now I save up and get it ASAP or I decide to not get it at all. I have always done this. Why wait when life is so short and unpredictable? Am I to believe I’m the only one that does this, or are economists out of touch with consumer psychology? Happy to be humbled…
“消费者倾向于尽可能长时间地推迟购买，因为他们认为等待越久，购买时的价格就越便宜。”
我无法理解这个概念。如果我想买某个东西，并且现在有能力负担得起，我会立即购买；如果暂时买不起，我会尽快攒钱然后尽快购买，或者决定根本不去买它。我一直都是这样做的。既然生命如此短暂且充满不确定性，为什么要等待呢？我是否应该相信我是唯一这样做的人，还是经济学家们对消费者心理的理解有所偏离呢？我很乐意接受谦逊的指教……
“Consumers are motivated to wait as long as possible to make any purchase, as the purchase will be less expensive the longer they wait”
I just don’t get this concept. If I want something I buy it now, if I can afford it now I get it now, if I can’t afford it now I save up and get it ASAP or I decide to not get it at all. I have always done this. Why wait when life is so short and unpredictable? Am I to believe I’m the only one that does this, or are economists out of touch with consumer psychology? Happy to be humbled…
“消费者倾向于尽可能长时间地推迟购买，因为他们认为等待越久，购买时的价格就越便宜。”
我无法理解这个概念。如果我想买某个东西，并且现在有能力负担得起，我会立即购买；如果暂时买不起，我会尽快攒钱然后尽快购买，或者决定根本不去买它。我一直都是这样做的。既然生命如此短暂且充满不确定性，为什么要等待呢？我是否应该相信我是唯一这样做的人，还是经济学家们对消费者心理的理解有所偏离呢？我很乐意接受谦逊的指教……
@gedmathteacher
Can you provide a real life example of when this has happened in a country? I understand what you’re saying and it makes sense. I’ve only heard of the opposite, hyperinflation, in real life - Argentina etc
能否提供一个现实生活中发生这种情况的国家实例？我明白你的观点，并且觉得有道理。不过，在现实生活中，我只听说过与之相反的情况——恶性通货膨胀，比如阿根廷等国。
Can you provide a real life example of when this has happened in a country? I understand what you’re saying and it makes sense. I’ve only heard of the opposite, hyperinflation, in real life - Argentina etc
能否提供一个现实生活中发生这种情况的国家实例？我明白你的观点，并且觉得有道理。不过，在现实生活中，我只听说过与之相反的情况——恶性通货膨胀，比如阿根廷等国。
@Ansuz07
Japan, between 1991 and 2001. They lost an entire decade of economic growth thanks to a deflationary economy and the only thing that saved it was massive quantitative easing by the government.
日本在1991年至2001年间就经历了这样的情况。由于通缩经济的影响，他们失去了整整十年的经济增长，最终拯救其经济的是政府采取的大规模量化宽松政策。
Japan, between 1991 and 2001. They lost an entire decade of economic growth thanks to a deflationary economy and the only thing that saved it was massive quantitative easing by the government.
日本在1991年至2001年间就经历了这样的情况。由于通缩经济的影响，他们失去了整整十年的经济增长，最终拯救其经济的是政府采取的大规模量化宽松政策。
@valeyard89
An old macro joke is that there are really only four types of economies: developed, developing, Japan and Argentina.
宏观经济领域有一个老笑话：实际上世界上只有四种类型的经济体——发达经济体、发展中经济体、日本和阿根廷。
An old macro joke is that there are really only four types of economies: developed, developing, Japan and Argentina.
宏观经济领域有一个老笑话：实际上世界上只有四种类型的经济体——发达经济体、发展中经济体、日本和阿根廷。
@davidcwilliams
Almost every modern economy targets a modest amount of inflation (2-3%) if for no other reason than to ensure this scenario doesn't happen.
So the governments and central banks steal 2-3% of the people’s purchasing power every year, for their own good.
几乎每个现代经济体都以实现适度通胀（2-3%）为目标，即使只是为了确保上述通缩情况不会发生。因此，政府和中央银行每年都会“窃取”人们2-3%的购买力，美其名曰为了大众的利益。
Almost every modern economy targets a modest amount of inflation (2-3%) if for no other reason than to ensure this scenario doesn't happen.
So the governments and central banks steal 2-3% of the people’s purchasing power every year, for their own good.
几乎每个现代经济体都以实现适度通胀（2-3%）为目标，即使只是为了确保上述通缩情况不会发生。因此，政府和中央银行每年都会“窃取”人们2-3%的购买力，美其名曰为了大众的利益。
@DarkScorpion48
All this and the fact zero or negative interest has also two downsides: banks are less eager to loan money so for example it’s harder for people to start a new business. Negative interest causes people to not keep their money in banks and thus lowering their liquidity.
此外，零利率或负利率还有两个弊端：银行贷款意愿降低，例如这会使人们更难创办新企业。负利率导致人们不愿将钱存入银行，从而降低了整个市场的流动性。
All this and the fact zero or negative interest has also two downsides: banks are less eager to loan money so for example it’s harder for people to start a new business. Negative interest causes people to not keep their money in banks and thus lowering their liquidity.
此外，零利率或负利率还有两个弊端：银行贷款意愿降低，例如这会使人们更难创办新企业。负利率导致人们不愿将钱存入银行，从而降低了整个市场的流动性。
@nrgxlr8tr
An economy is a bunch of people doing favours for each other. Deflation is when people want to stop doing these favours. The end result is that nothing gets done.
经济就是一群人相互提供服务的过程。通缩意味着人们不想再互相提供这些服务了，最终结果是什么事情都做不成。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
An economy is a bunch of people doing favours for each other. Deflation is when people want to stop doing these favours. The end result is that nothing gets done.
经济就是一群人相互提供服务的过程。通缩意味着人们不想再互相提供这些服务了，最终结果是什么事情都做不成。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@costco_dog
Yep. And Inflation is like a group of people doing more and more favours for each other, but each favour becomes less special or valuable over time. The end result is that even though a lot of favours are being done, they don't mean as much as they used to.
没错。而通胀就像是同一群人为了彼此做了越来越多的事情，但随着时间推移，每件事情的重要性或价值都在减少。最终的结果是，尽管大家都在忙碌做事，但这些事的价值却不如以前重要了。
Yep. And Inflation is like a group of people doing more and more favours for each other, but each favour becomes less special or valuable over time. The end result is that even though a lot of favours are being done, they don't mean as much as they used to.
没错。而通胀就像是同一群人为了彼此做了越来越多的事情，但随着时间推移，每件事情的重要性或价值都在减少。最终的结果是，尽管大家都在忙碌做事，但这些事的价值却不如以前重要了。
@Shs21
It's easier to sell debt when there is inflation, and most economies are driven almost entirely off of government and consumer debt.
在通胀时期更容易出售债务，而大部分经济体几乎完全依赖于政府和消费者债务驱动。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
It's easier to sell debt when there is inflation, and most economies are driven almost entirely off of government and consumer debt.
在通胀时期更容易出售债务，而大部分经济体几乎完全依赖于政府和消费者债务驱动。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@whoeve
Yeah, they spend all their money because we have a small amount of inflation. If we didn't, they wouldn't spend all their money. Living paycheck to paycheck doesn't mean you have zero dollars to spend on anything outside of rent and food. Americans have the highest @of disposable income in the world.
没错，人们之所以花光所有钱是因为存在轻微的通胀。如果没有通胀，他们就不会全部花掉。虽然靠薪水度日不意味着除了房租和食物之外就没有其他消费的钱了。美国人的可支配收入在世界上是最高的。
Yeah, they spend all their money because we have a small amount of inflation. If we didn't, they wouldn't spend all their money. Living paycheck to paycheck doesn't mean you have zero dollars to spend on anything outside of rent and food. Americans have the highest @of disposable income in the world.
没错，人们之所以花光所有钱是因为存在轻微的通胀。如果没有通胀，他们就不会全部花掉。虽然靠薪水度日不意味着除了房租和食物之外就没有其他消费的钱了。美国人的可支配收入在世界上是最高的。
@chunkybrewster55
I personally don’t buy your idea that (most) people spend all of their money because we have a small amount of inflation. People are genuinely struggling because of inflation currently. It actually matters to a lot of people went rent/mortgage jacks up, food costs go crazy and no basic need ever goes down. I, likely in ignorance, think many would love some deflation in the short run
我个人并不认同你的观点，即（大多数）人会因为有轻微通胀而花光所有的钱。目前由于通胀，人们实际上正在承受巨大的压力。当租金或抵押贷款上涨、食品成本飙升且基本生活需求从未下降时，这对许多人来说确实很重要。可能出于无知，我认为短期内许多人会欢迎一定程度的通缩。
I personally don’t buy your idea that (most) people spend all of their money because we have a small amount of inflation. People are genuinely struggling because of inflation currently. It actually matters to a lot of people went rent/mortgage jacks up, food costs go crazy and no basic need ever goes down. I, likely in ignorance, think many would love some deflation in the short run
我个人并不认同你的观点，即（大多数）人会因为有轻微通胀而花光所有的钱。目前由于通胀，人们实际上正在承受巨大的压力。当租金或抵押贷款上涨、食品成本飙升且基本生活需求从未下降时，这对许多人来说确实很重要。可能出于无知，我认为短期内许多人会欢迎一定程度的通缩。
@Daiku_Firecross
Oh I don't expect prices to stay the same forever. Just feels like prices have been changing so drastically in one direction and only trickles back down briefly before jumping back up to the extreme again.
哦，我并不期望价格永远保持不变。只是感觉物价一直在单方向剧烈变动，只短暂回调后又迅速回升到极端水平。
Oh I don't expect prices to stay the same forever. Just feels like prices have been changing so drastically in one direction and only trickles back down briefly before jumping back up to the extreme again.
哦，我并不期望价格永远保持不变。只是感觉物价一直在单方向剧烈变动，只短暂回调后又迅速回升到极端水平。
@hillswalker87
I would like to point out that sometimes, deflation is confused with costs going down due to technological advancement and economies of scale, trade with entities that have a comparative advantage...basically efficiency increasing so things become cheaper.
this is not the same thing as "deflation", although on a superficial @they can look a bit similar.
我想指出的是，有时通缩会被混淆为由于科技进步、规模经济效应以及与具有比较优势实体的贸易导致的成本下降，即效率提高使得物品变得更便宜。 这与“通缩”不是一回事，尽管在表面上它们可能看起来有些相似。
I would like to point out that sometimes, deflation is confused with costs going down due to technological advancement and economies of scale, trade with entities that have a comparative advantage...basically efficiency increasing so things become cheaper.
this is not the same thing as "deflation", although on a superficial @they can look a bit similar.
我想指出的是，有时通缩会被混淆为由于科技进步、规模经济效应以及与具有比较优势实体的贸易导致的成本下降，即效率提高使得物品变得更便宜。 这与“通缩”不是一回事，尽管在表面上它们可能看起来有些相似。
@Fangslash
Top comment did a very good job explaining why deflation is bad
To illustrate their point, Japan’s gpd per capita peaked in 1995 at $44,210, today its at $33,949
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263596/gross-domestic-product-gdp-per-capita-in-japan/
In comparison, US in 1995 was $28,671, today its $80,412
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263601/gross-domestic-product-gdp-per-capita-in-the-united-states/
And this isn’t even a fair comparison for the US, because Japan had a major population decline which shrinks the denominator in per capita figure
楼上的评论很好地解释了为什么通缩是坏事。为了说明这一点，日本的人均GDP在1995年达到峰值44,210美元，而今天降至33,949美元（数据来源：https://www.statista.com/statistics/263596/gross-domestic-product-gdp-per-capita-in-japan/）。
相比之下，美国在1995年人均GDP为28,671美元，如今已升至80,412美元（数据来源：https://www.statista.com/statistics/263601/gross-domestic-product-gdp-per-capita-in-the-united-states/）。
而且这还不是一个对美国公平的比较，因为日本经历了大规模人口减少，使得人均数值的分母变小。
Top comment did a very good job explaining why deflation is bad
To illustrate their point, Japan’s gpd per capita peaked in 1995 at $44,210, today its at $33,949
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263596/gross-domestic-product-gdp-per-capita-in-japan/
In comparison, US in 1995 was $28,671, today its $80,412
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263601/gross-domestic-product-gdp-per-capita-in-the-united-states/
And this isn’t even a fair comparison for the US, because Japan had a major population decline which shrinks the denominator in per capita figure
楼上的评论很好地解释了为什么通缩是坏事。为了说明这一点，日本的人均GDP在1995年达到峰值44,210美元，而今天降至33,949美元（数据来源：https://www.statista.com/statistics/263596/gross-domestic-product-gdp-per-capita-in-japan/）。
相比之下，美国在1995年人均GDP为28,671美元，如今已升至80,412美元（数据来源：https://www.statista.com/statistics/263601/gross-domestic-product-gdp-per-capita-in-the-united-states/）。
而且这还不是一个对美国公平的比较，因为日本经历了大规模人口减少，使得人均数值的分母变小。
@marcielle
Super simplistic version: The modern economic system not just incentivizes, but DEMANDS everyone be as greedy as possible to succeed, and when things are deflating, that means 1 dollar is essentially becoming worth more and more stuff by the day, so ppl keep holding on to the 1 dollar until they can get maximum stuff for it, but no spending means economy go bye bye.
ADDITION: This is even more sad when you realize holding onto tons of money is basically what a billionaire is, and hence billionaires, the ones who profit most from the economy, are the ones who hurt it the most.(Also overly simplified)
超级简化版解释：现代经济体系不仅鼓励，甚至要求每个人尽可能贪婪才能成功。当出现通缩时，意味着1美元的价值在逐日增加，可以购买更多的东西，所以人们会紧握手中的1美元直到能用它换取最多的商品。但缺乏消费就意味着经济走向衰亡。补充一点：当你意识到囤积大量金钱正是亿万富翁的本质时，你会感到更悲哀，因为这些从经济中获益最大的亿万富翁实际上也是伤害经济最严重的人。（同样过于简化）
Super simplistic version: The modern economic system not just incentivizes, but DEMANDS everyone be as greedy as possible to succeed, and when things are deflating, that means 1 dollar is essentially becoming worth more and more stuff by the day, so ppl keep holding on to the 1 dollar until they can get maximum stuff for it, but no spending means economy go bye bye.
ADDITION: This is even more sad when you realize holding onto tons of money is basically what a billionaire is, and hence billionaires, the ones who profit most from the economy, are the ones who hurt it the most.(Also overly simplified)
超级简化版解释：现代经济体系不仅鼓励，甚至要求每个人尽可能贪婪才能成功。当出现通缩时，意味着1美元的价值在逐日增加，可以购买更多的东西，所以人们会紧握手中的1美元直到能用它换取最多的商品。但缺乏消费就意味着经济走向衰亡。补充一点：当你意识到囤积大量金钱正是亿万富翁的本质时，你会感到更悲哀，因为这些从经济中获益最大的亿万富翁实际上也是伤害经济最严重的人。（同样过于简化）
@jmlinden7
Deflation means that people and businesses are incentivized to hoard cash (like physical paper currency) instead of lending or investing it. This then makes it hard to open or expand businesses, which then makes the deflation worse, and then makes it even harder to open or expand businesses.
What compounds the problem even more is that many institutions (including the government) have borrowed billions of dollars betting that the deflation will stop, but instead, it just keeps getting worse and worse, making their bets further and further in the red.
通缩意味着个人和企业被激励去囤积现金（比如实物纸币），而不是将其借出或投资。这就导致开设或扩大企业变得困难，进而加剧通缩状况，并使开设或扩大企业变得更加困难。更糟糕的是，许多机构（包括政府）已经借贷了数十亿美元，押注通缩将会停止，但实际情况却是通缩不断恶化，使得他们的赌注陷入越来越深的亏损之中。
Deflation means that people and businesses are incentivized to hoard cash (like physical paper currency) instead of lending or investing it. This then makes it hard to open or expand businesses, which then makes the deflation worse, and then makes it even harder to open or expand businesses.
What compounds the problem even more is that many institutions (including the government) have borrowed billions of dollars betting that the deflation will stop, but instead, it just keeps getting worse and worse, making their bets further and further in the red.
通缩意味着个人和企业被激励去囤积现金（比如实物纸币），而不是将其借出或投资。这就导致开设或扩大企业变得困难，进而加剧通缩状况，并使开设或扩大企业变得更加困难。更糟糕的是，许多机构（包括政府）已经借贷了数十亿美元，押注通缩将会停止，但实际情况却是通缩不断恶化，使得他们的赌注陷入越来越深的亏损之中。
@jmlinden7
T-Bills are literally lending. So while not ideal, the money does go to a borrower (the government) who then spends it.
Physical currency that is hoarded, on the other hand, never does anything productive.
实际上，短期国债就是一种借贷行为。虽然不够理想，但资金确实流向了借款人（即政府），然后由政府用于支出。相反，被囤积起来的实物货币则永远不会产生任何生产性效益。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
T-Bills are literally lending. So while not ideal, the money does go to a borrower (the government) who then spends it.
Physical currency that is hoarded, on the other hand, never does anything productive.
实际上，短期国债就是一种借贷行为。虽然不够理想，但资金确实流向了借款人（即政府），然后由政府用于支出。相反，被囤积起来的实物货币则永远不会产生任何生产性效益。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@darti_me
Deflation is bad because the “rational” individual will opt to defer any non-necessary purchases or nice to haves. This will create an environment where no one spends because the expectation is that prices will be lower tomorrow.
So why 0 or negative interest? This is to deter people from saving money.
If no one spends money, businesses go kaput, people get laid off, wages goes down or stagnates.
If people spend money (more than they save), this creates an environment where businesses EXPECTS more sales and justifies risks like expanding factories, hiring more workers, giving bonuses etc…
Now does this actually work? ehhh.
通缩之所以被认为是不好的，是因为“理性”的个人会选择推迟所有非必需品或可有可无的购买。这样一来，当大家都预期明天价格会更低时，就会形成一个无人消费的环境。 那么为什么实行零利率或负利率呢？这样做是为了阻止人们过度储蓄。 如果没有人花钱，企业就会倒闭，人们失业，工资下降或停滞不前。 而如果人们更多地消费（而非储蓄），这将创造出一个商业活动活跃的环境，企业预期会有更多的销售量，从而有理由去冒风险扩大工厂规模、雇佣更多工人、发放奖金等…… 然而，这种方法真的有效吗？嗯……效果存疑。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Deflation is bad because the “rational” individual will opt to defer any non-necessary purchases or nice to haves. This will create an environment where no one spends because the expectation is that prices will be lower tomorrow.
So why 0 or negative interest? This is to deter people from saving money.
If no one spends money, businesses go kaput, people get laid off, wages goes down or stagnates.
If people spend money (more than they save), this creates an environment where businesses EXPECTS more sales and justifies risks like expanding factories, hiring more workers, giving bonuses etc…
Now does this actually work? ehhh.
通缩之所以被认为是不好的，是因为“理性”的个人会选择推迟所有非必需品或可有可无的购买。这样一来，当大家都预期明天价格会更低时，就会形成一个无人消费的环境。 那么为什么实行零利率或负利率呢？这样做是为了阻止人们过度储蓄。 如果没有人花钱，企业就会倒闭，人们失业，工资下降或停滞不前。 而如果人们更多地消费（而非储蓄），这将创造出一个商业活动活跃的环境，企业预期会有更多的销售量，从而有理由去冒风险扩大工厂规模、雇佣更多工人、发放奖金等…… 然而，这种方法真的有效吗？嗯……效果存疑。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@Owmahleggg
the min wage is very low in Japan I think around 9$? maybe it would round to 7-8 USD dollars. The average salary I believe is like poverty @in USA, 30-40k I think or lower. so that's one thing that sucks
日本的最低工资很低，大约在9美元左右，可能折算下来只有7-8美元。据我了解，日本的平均工资相当于美国的贫困线水平，大约在3万至4万美元之间，甚至更低。这是其中令人沮丧的一个方面。
the min wage is very low in Japan I think around 9$? maybe it would round to 7-8 USD dollars. The average salary I believe is like poverty @in USA, 30-40k I think or lower. so that's one thing that sucks
日本的最低工资很低，大约在9美元左右，可能折算下来只有7-8美元。据我了解，日本的平均工资相当于美国的贫困线水平，大约在3万至4万美元之间，甚至更低。这是其中令人沮丧的一个方面。
@TBarretH
Raw dollar average salary comparisons are pretty much pointless unless you're working in Japan but planning to move to the US in the near term. You need to compare the minimum wage in the country verse the average cost of living in that country to get a comparable number.
As a real-world example of this, I took a raw dollar pay cut to move to Europe for work, but my standard of living increased because the cost of living my new city was much less than it had been in the US.
直接比较各国的名义平均工资意义不大，除非你正在日本工作并计划短期内搬到美国。你需要对比一个国家的最低工资与其国内平均生活成本，才能得出具有可比性的数字。举个实际例子，我为了移居欧洲工作接受了名义上的工资削减，但我的生活水平却提高了，因为在新城市的生活成本远低于我在美国时的成本。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Raw dollar average salary comparisons are pretty much pointless unless you're working in Japan but planning to move to the US in the near term. You need to compare the minimum wage in the country verse the average cost of living in that country to get a comparable number.
As a real-world example of this, I took a raw dollar pay cut to move to Europe for work, but my standard of living increased because the cost of living my new city was much less than it had been in the US.
直接比较各国的名义平均工资意义不大，除非你正在日本工作并计划短期内搬到美国。你需要对比一个国家的最低工资与其国内平均生活成本，才能得出具有可比性的数字。举个实际例子，我为了移居欧洲工作接受了名义上的工资削减，但我的生活水平却提高了，因为在新城市的生活成本远低于我在美国时的成本。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@Owmahleggg
HMM that is true, the minimum wage/average salary in Japan is lower compared to other countries but the cost of living in general in Japan is low as well with regards to basic stuff such as food, health, medicine, and monthly rent.
确实如此，日本的最低工资和平均薪资相比其他国家较低，但在基本生活消费方面，如食物、医疗、药品和月租等，日本的整体生活成本也相对较低。
HMM that is true, the minimum wage/average salary in Japan is lower compared to other countries but the cost of living in general in Japan is low as well with regards to basic stuff such as food, health, medicine, and monthly rent.
确实如此，日本的最低工资和平均薪资相比其他国家较低，但在基本生活消费方面，如食物、医疗、药品和月租等，日本的整体生活成本也相对较低。
@roawa
It’s all about debt and investment. The financial class invests in things that put people into debt. If a house or a car will be cheaper next year, a lot of people will save up so they can borrow less. But it’s not like the economy grinds to a halt. Most people won’t even go to a different store to get lower prices today, much less hold off in hopes that unseen macroeconomic forces will work out in their favor. Japan has been hovering around deflation for decades. It’s mostly fine.
关键在于债务和投资。金融阶层投资于那些让人们背上债务的事物。如果明年房价或车价会下降，很多人会选择攒钱以便将来借更少的钱。但这并不意味着经济会停滞不前。大多数人甚至不会为了更低的价格而特意去另一家商店购物，更不用说抱着宏观经济力量可能对自己有利的希望推迟购买了。日本几十年来一直在通缩边缘徘徊，总体上情况尚可。
It’s all about debt and investment. The financial class invests in things that put people into debt. If a house or a car will be cheaper next year, a lot of people will save up so they can borrow less. But it’s not like the economy grinds to a halt. Most people won’t even go to a different store to get lower prices today, much less hold off in hopes that unseen macroeconomic forces will work out in their favor. Japan has been hovering around deflation for decades. It’s mostly fine.
关键在于债务和投资。金融阶层投资于那些让人们背上债务的事物。如果明年房价或车价会下降，很多人会选择攒钱以便将来借更少的钱。但这并不意味着经济会停滞不前。大多数人甚至不会为了更低的价格而特意去另一家商店购物，更不用说抱着宏观经济力量可能对自己有利的希望推迟购买了。日本几十年来一直在通缩边缘徘徊，总体上情况尚可。
@Chaff5
Deflation is bad in a supply side economy designed for capitalism. Demand side economics still has people spending money but they'll be pretty frugal and only spend on necessities or products that actually have utility or are interesting.
So things like food, utilities, fuel, etc., will still get people to spend money. But the newest iPhone when your 3 year old iPhone is still perfectly functional and paid off? Maybe not so much.
I think I saw in one of your comments about printing money to force inflation: yes, that is absolutely something that can be done. It happens in an inflationary economy as well.
Deflation isn't any more "bad" than inflation being "good." It all depends on your perspective. Deflation makes prices go down or your purchasing power go up. Inflation is the opposite. The only thing that would be bad is when you have spiraling inflation or deflation; both can kill an economy.
在设计为资本主义服务的供给侧经济中，通缩是不利的。而在需求侧经济学中，人们仍然会花钱，但他们将更加节俭，只会在必需品或真正有用或有趣的产品上进行消费。 因此，食品、公共事业、燃料等物品仍会让人们继续花钱。但是，当你的三年旧款iPhone依然功能完好且已还清贷款时，是否有必要购买最新的iPhone？也许就不会那么急切了。 我注意到你在其中一个评论中提到了印钞来强制通胀：没错，这是绝对可以做到的。它同样发生在通胀型经济体中。 通缩并非一定就比通胀“好”，反之亦然。好坏完全取决于你的视角。通缩会导致物价下跌或购买力上升，而通胀则相反。唯一真正糟糕的情况是恶性通胀或恶性通缩；两者都可能摧毁经济。
Deflation is bad in a supply side economy designed for capitalism. Demand side economics still has people spending money but they'll be pretty frugal and only spend on necessities or products that actually have utility or are interesting.
So things like food, utilities, fuel, etc., will still get people to spend money. But the newest iPhone when your 3 year old iPhone is still perfectly functional and paid off? Maybe not so much.
I think I saw in one of your comments about printing money to force inflation: yes, that is absolutely something that can be done. It happens in an inflationary economy as well.
Deflation isn't any more "bad" than inflation being "good." It all depends on your perspective. Deflation makes prices go down or your purchasing power go up. Inflation is the opposite. The only thing that would be bad is when you have spiraling inflation or deflation; both can kill an economy.
在设计为资本主义服务的供给侧经济中，通缩是不利的。而在需求侧经济学中，人们仍然会花钱，但他们将更加节俭，只会在必需品或真正有用或有趣的产品上进行消费。 因此，食品、公共事业、燃料等物品仍会让人们继续花钱。但是，当你的三年旧款iPhone依然功能完好且已还清贷款时，是否有必要购买最新的iPhone？也许就不会那么急切了。 我注意到你在其中一个评论中提到了印钞来强制通胀：没错，这是绝对可以做到的。它同样发生在通胀型经济体中。 通缩并非一定就比通胀“好”，反之亦然。好坏完全取决于你的视角。通缩会导致物价下跌或购买力上升，而通胀则相反。唯一真正糟糕的情况是恶性通胀或恶性通缩；两者都可能摧毁经济。
@maverickhunterpheoni
Money becomes more valuable over time in a deflationary environment. So investing money isn't as beneficial for a business. That means hiring someone might just be a waste of money when you could have saved it instead. So people might have a hard time finding jobs. Fewer jobs means people don't spend money, since they are unemployed. So companies have to fire workers because their business isn't making enough money. Now there are more unemployed people that can't spend money. Bad situation if deflation isn't fixed.
在通缩环境中，随着时间推移，货币会变得更加值钱。这意味着对于企业来说，投资赚钱不再那么有利可图。因此，雇佣员工可能会变成浪费金钱，还不如把钱存起来。这样一来，人们可能很难找到工作。就业机会减少意味着失业者没有钱可花。于是，由于业务收入不足，公司不得不解雇工人。现在，更多的失业人口无法消费。如果不解决通缩问题，将会陷入恶性循环，形成糟糕的局面。
Money becomes more valuable over time in a deflationary environment. So investing money isn't as beneficial for a business. That means hiring someone might just be a waste of money when you could have saved it instead. So people might have a hard time finding jobs. Fewer jobs means people don't spend money, since they are unemployed. So companies have to fire workers because their business isn't making enough money. Now there are more unemployed people that can't spend money. Bad situation if deflation isn't fixed.
在通缩环境中，随着时间推移，货币会变得更加值钱。这意味着对于企业来说，投资赚钱不再那么有利可图。因此，雇佣员工可能会变成浪费金钱，还不如把钱存起来。这样一来，人们可能很难找到工作。就业机会减少意味着失业者没有钱可花。于是，由于业务收入不足，公司不得不解雇工人。现在，更多的失业人口无法消费。如果不解决通缩问题，将会陷入恶性循环，形成糟糕的局面。
很赞 7
收藏