纽约客上有篇文章，有关印钞票的问题，我觉得跟这个话题有关，推荐一下：
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cass ... pter-money
He was even more critical of the notion that central banks, in seeking another way to boost their economies, could simply create large sums of money and distribute them to the public. This idea is often referred to as “helicopter drops,” because Milton Friedman, when he came up with the proposal, decades ago, suggested, half-jokingly, that central bankers could shower banknotes from a chopper.
He began by acknowledging that central bankers in developed countries are facing great challenges, and that this is what prompted them to resort to quantitative easing and other novel measures, such as the introduction of negative short-term interest rates in some countries.
Despite record low interest rates in many industrialized countries, Rajan pointed out, the over-all level of demand remains depressed, and in some places savings rates have actually risen, which runs counter to the theory that ultra-low rates stimulate spending.
The theory is that the lucky people who pick up the new currency would go out and spend it. Rajan raised another possibility: “Somebody getting this money and seeing the central bank governor throwing money out of the window will say, ‘Is this guy crazy? Has the world gone nuts? I’d better save much of this because I’m not sure what will happen.’ ” If this scenario played out, most of the new money would end up being stored in bank accounts for precautionary reasons, and its creation wouldn’t have much impact on the broader economy.
In this more realistic context, Rajan conceded, there is a way to make sure that most of the new money gets spent: give it to poor people, who would use it to buy more of life’s essentials. “Consumption will go up,” he said. “But in which country is there political room to send large checks to the poorest people? In general, the checks will have to be sent broadly. If they are sent broadly, a large number of people will simply save them.”
虽然没有这么说，但是我越来越觉得，全世界经济面临的问题是 slow growth，而缓慢增长的原因呢？人民不花钱消费。为什么不花钱消费呢？只是因为对未来的不确定和担忧所以只存不花吗？也许是，嗯，throwing out a strange idea, 花不动了涅？也许缓慢增长是近期未来的正常而必然状态呢，你再怎么使劲刺激 --- 感谢上帝人类的攀比心理还能带动不少消费欲望 --- 也是有限得很。要从本质上刺激消费带动经济的增长，咋办？三次元里已经花不动了，能不能把人民带到二次元里花掉？哦不对，其实已经进入了虚拟的社会里花钱，bit coin 啦，virtual reality 啦，游戏啦，等等已经开始进入了。只有在 The Matrix 里面，经济才会无限增长，大家才会都有工作。
我又要提起 Future Shock 了，那本书提出的概念真是透过现象看本质。存钱的本质是给未来生活提供保障。古代是储存粮食以及占有土地，渐渐进化成比较抽象的钱，现在进化成只存在于电子网络里的数字财富。因为剩余价值可以被积累，我们从活在现在的动物变成了活在未来的动物。我们以为只要无限敛财就可以保证未来的平安与富足，不会饿死冻死被野兽咬死，甚至阻挡死亡的脚步，自己这辈子花不完留给下辈子继续花。Yet meanwhile we are all still working ...
当然实际上还是有很多地方可供人类消费，很多地方可以花钱，而多数人并没有往那上面去花钱。可能是因为，我们的本能还不能适应在衣食住行基本需要之外的花钱，或者我们的本能对于未来口粮的焦虑起到最大的作用。
从经济发展的角度来说，income inequality 对于世界经济的作用是负面的。财富越集中在少数人手里，经济增长就越疲软。但是富人又不肯拿出来分享，哪怕长远来说对大家都有好处。
