Sixty Second Adventures of Econonics:
Number 2 The Paradox of Thrift
二、节约悖论
Much like a child getting his pocket money, one of the biggest economic questions is still whether it’s better to save or spend.
就和孩子得到零花钱时的问题一样， 经济学最大的问题之一仍然是：把钱存起来好还是花掉好，。
Free marketeer like Hayek and Milton Friedman say that even in diffiuclt times it’s best to be thrifty and save. Banks then channel the saving into investment, in new plants, skills and techniques that let us produce more.
自由市场学者，比如哈耶克和密尔顿·弗里德曼主张，哪怕在最艰难的时期，节约并存钱也是最合适的。银行将人们存入的钱引入投资领域，建立新工厂，培训新技能，研发新技术，让我们生产更多产品，
And even if this new technology destroys jobs, wages will drop and businesses hire more people --- so the unemployment falls again. Simple. At least in the long run.
虽然新技术毁掉工作机会，但工资会下降，企业就会招募更多人——因而失业率降低。很简单，至少从长远看，（失业率降低）。
But then a “live-fast-die-young” kind of chap called John Maynard Keynes cheerfully pointed out that “in the long run, we are all dead”.
但是随后，一个“赶着去投胎”类型的家伙，名叫约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯，满不在乎地指出“从长远看，我们都是死人。”
So to avoid misery of unemployment, the government should instead spend money to create jobs. 所以，为了避免失业的穷困，政府反倒是应该花钱去创造工作。
Wheras if the government tightens its belt when people and buisnesses are doing the same, less is spent, so the unemployment even gets worse.
反之，如果在人们和企业勒紧裤腰带时，政府也勒紧裤腰带，花费就会减少，失业状况就会更糟。
That is the paradox of thrift.
这就是节约悖论，
So instead they should spend now and tax later when everyone’s happy to pay. Though, making people happy to pay tax is something even Keynes didn’t solve.
所以，政府应该此时不能省钱而是花钱，以后等大家都乐于交税时再收税。不过，让人们乐意交税，是件甚至凯恩斯也没解决的问题。
Sixty Second Adventures of Econonics:
Number 2 The Paradox of Thrift
二、节约悖论
Much like a child getting his pocket money, one of the biggest economic questions is still whether it’s better to save or spend.
就和孩子得到零花钱时的问题一样， 经济学最大的问题之一仍然是：把钱存起来好还是花掉好，。
Free marketeer like Hayek and Milton Friedman say that even in diffiuclt times it’s best to be thrifty and save. Banks then channel the saving into investment, in new plants, skills and techniques that let us produce more.
自由市场学者，比如哈耶克和密尔顿·弗里德曼主张，哪怕在最艰难的时期，节约并存钱也是最合适的。银行将人们存入的钱引入投资领域，建立新工厂，培训新技能，研发新技术，让我们生产更多产品，
And even if this new technology destroys jobs, wages will drop and businesses hire more people --- so the unemployment falls again. Simple. At least in the long run.
虽然新技术毁掉工作机会，但工资会下降，企业就会招募更多人——因而失业率降低。很简单，至少从长远看，（失业率降低）。
But then a “live-fast-die-young” kind of chap called John Maynard Keynes cheerfully pointed out that “in the long run, we are all dead”.
但是随后，一个“赶着去投胎”类型的家伙，名叫约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯，满不在乎地指出“从长远看，我们都是死人。”
So to avoid misery of unemployment, the government should instead spend money to create jobs. 所以，为了避免失业的穷困，政府反倒是应该花钱去创造工作。
Wheras if the government tightens its belt when people and buisnesses are doing the same, less is spent, so the unemployment even gets worse.
反之，如果在人们和企业勒紧裤腰带时，政府也勒紧裤腰带，花费就会减少，失业状况就会更糟。
That is the paradox of thrift.
这就是节约悖论，
So instead they should spend now and tax later when everyone’s happy to pay. Though, making people happy to pay tax is something even Keynes didn’t solve.
所以，政府应该此时不能省钱而是花钱，以后等大家都乐于交税时再收税。不过，让人们乐意交税，是件甚至凯恩斯也没解决的问题。