評論
打印
Secondly, inflation simply never became a threat.
第二，通貨膨脹單純來說時不會成為威脅的。
As you can see, in the United States,inflation for most of this period remained below average.
正如你所見到的，在美國，這個階段大部分時間的通貨膨脹都低于平均數。
It was the same elsewhere.
在別的地方也一樣。
So how does all this relate to aid?
那么所有的這一切是怎么和救助這個事兒掛鉤的呢？
Well, this is where Dorothy and the Mango Tree charity that supports her comes in.
這就是桃樂茜和資助她的芒果樹慈善機構開始出現。
I was at one of their fundraising events earlier this year,and I was inspired to give a one-off donation when I remembered that my firm offers to match the charitable contributions its employees make.
在今年年初的時候我在一個募捐活動上，我當時受到了鼓舞，捐了一筆捐款,然后我想起我的公司答應會根據自己員工捐款的數額,再捐同樣的數額。
So think of this:
所以這么想：
Instead of just being able to help Dorothy and four of her classmates to go through secondary school for a few years,I was able to double my contribution.
我不單能幫助到桃樂茜還有她的四個同學,幫助他們完成中學幾年的學業，我能夠讓我的貢獻翻倍。
Brilliant.
這真是太棒了。
So following that conversation with my daughter,and seeing the absence of inflation in the face of money-printing,and knowing that international aid payments were falling at just the wrong time,this made me wonder:Could we match but just on a much grander scale?
所以想著我和女兒的對話，看著面臨鈔票印刷時消失的通貨膨脹，以及知道國際救助款項在不恰當的時間被減少了，這讓我好奇：我們能否在規模上提高一個等級？
Let's call this scheme Print Aid.
讓我們把這個計劃成為印救。
And here's how it might work.
下面解釋一下它的運作。
Provided it saw little inflation risk from doing so,the central bank would be mandated to match the government's overseas aid payments up to a certain limit.
假設這樣做基本沒什么通貨膨脹的風險，中央銀行需被強制采取措施以達到政府的海外救助款項所設定的一個限度。
Governments have been aiming to get aid to 0.7 percent for years,so let's set the limit at half of that,0.35 percent of their income.
政府這幾年來都試圖讓救助款項達到0.7%的數額，那么我們就把限制定在一半吧，就是收入的0.35%。
So it would work like this: If in a given year the government gave 0.2 percent of its income to overseas aid,the central bank would simply top it up with a further 0.2 percent.
所以它會這樣運作：如果在某一年政府把收入的0.2%撥給海外救助，那么中央銀行只要把它的款項提高多0.2％就可以了。
So far so good.
目前感覺還不錯吧。
How risky is this?
這樣做的風險有多大？
Well, this involves the creation of money to buy goods, not assets.
它其實涉及到制造貨幣去購買商品，而非資產。
It sounds more inflationary already, doesn't it.
聽起來有點通貨膨脹了，對吧。
But there are two important mitigating factors here.
但這里有兩個重要的緩解因素。
The first is that by definition,
第一個，就是從定義上說，
this money printed would be spent overseas.
印制出來的鈔票會被投放到海外。
So it's not obvious how it leads to inflation in the country doing the actual printing unless it leads to a currency depreciation of that country.
所以印刷鈔票對國內而言,不大可能會導致通貨膨脹除非它導致了這個國家的貨幣貶值。
That is unlikely for the second reason:
這也不大可能出現，因為有第二個原因：
the scale of the money that would be printed under this scheme.
取決于在這個計劃下印刷鈔票的規模。
So let's think of an example where Print Aid was in place in the U.S., U.K. and Japan.
舉個例子,比如印救計劃在美國，英國和日本實施。
To match the aid payments made by those governments over the last four years,Print Aid would have generated 200 billion dollars' worth of extra aid.
為了達到政府們在過去四年里在救助款項達到的數目，印救會提供額外的兩千億美金給救助款項。
What would that look like in the context of the increase in the money stock that had already happened in those countries to save the financial system?
會出現怎樣的情況？當這些國家為了拯救財政系統已提高貨幣儲存量。
Are you read for this?
準備好聽答案了嗎？
You might struggle to see that at the back,because the gap is quite small.
在后面你可能會看不清，因為這個空缺很小。
So what we're saying here is that we took a 3.7 trillion gamble to save our financial systems,and you know what, it paid off.
所以我們這里說的是我們拿了3.7萬億美金孤注一擲去緩解我們的財政系統壓力，結果呢，它見成效了。
There was no inflation.
沒有通貨膨脹。
