QA：目前生活成本面臨的最大威脅是什么？

Pearl York
Strictly from a non-economist’s point of view, it seems to me the biggest threat to the cost of living for some time has been that the growth in the money supply has been hugely outstripping real productivity. By “real” productivity I’m speaking of the growth in things people actually want to buy, not the things the government thinks they ought to pay for
If an economy has a money supply of $1000 and a supply of widgets people want to buy of 1,000, then each widget will cost a dollar. If next year the society can produce 1,100 widgets and people want to buy that many, then if the money supply grows to $1,100, the price remains the same. All is well. Either there are more people getting their widgets or people are getting more widgets, but either way, these are good things to happen.
But say the government steps in and says, paying $1 for a widget is hard on the poor, so we’re going to print more money to give to them, so they can more easily afford their widgets, and we’re also going to print more money to give to people who pretend to help the poor — call them teachers or social workers or community activists or diversity specialists or whatever. So it increases the money supply to $3,000. Because labor is being diverted to useless fields**(more below on this) (and perhaps capital availability is reduced by taxes if the government pretends it can get all the money it needs from “the rich”), the cost of producing widgets rises, so only 900 widgets get produced.

嚴格地從非經(jīng)濟學家的角度來看，在我看來，一段時間以來，生活成本面臨的最大威脅是貨幣供應的增長遠遠超過了實際生產(chǎn)力。所謂“真正”生產(chǎn)力，我指的是人們真正想買的東西的增長，而不是政府認為他們應該花錢買的東西。
如果一個經(jīng)濟體的貨幣供應量為 1000 美元，而人們想要購買的產(chǎn)品供應量為 1,000，那么每個產(chǎn)品將花費一美元。如果明年社會可以生產(chǎn) 1,100 個產(chǎn)品并且人們想要購買那么多，那么如果貨幣供應量增長到 1,100 美元，價格將保持不變，這樣的話一切都很好。要么有更多的人獲得他們的產(chǎn)品，要么人們獲得更多的產(chǎn)品，但無論哪種方式，這些都是好事。
但是如果政府介入并說，為一個產(chǎn)品支付 1 美元對窮人來說很難，所以我們要印更多的錢給他們，這樣他們就可以更容易地買得起他們的產(chǎn)品，我們也將印更多的錢給那些假裝幫助窮人的人——稱他們?yōu)榻處煛⑸鐣ぷ髡?、社區(qū)活動家或多樣性專家等等。因此，政府將貨幣供應量增加到 3,000 美元。因為勞動力被轉移到無用的領域**（更多內(nèi)容見下文）（如果政府假裝可以從“富人”那里獲得所需的全部資金，那么資本可用性可能會因稅收而減少），生產(chǎn)產(chǎn)品的成本上升，所以只生產(chǎn)了 900 個產(chǎn)品。

Now there’s $3,000 in money supply and only 900 widgets being produced, which is the only thing anybody really wants (including all the government helpers and all the poor people), plus the helpers and the poor people have more money (or at least, they think they do) and want more widgets than they used to be able to afford. So the price of widgets rises to $3.33 each.
This creates more apparent poverty and greater demand for more government help, which usually means giving more money to the non-poor to “help” the poor, only a little of which trickles down to actually help the poor.
This can be a very slow process, depending on how big the gap is between the money supply and the production of stuff people really want, but for the last decade and a half, the money supply has been increasing at very rapid rates. The supply of stuff people really want has also been increasing substantially, but not nearly fast enough to soak all of that up.
So prices have been rising pretty much across the board, both for “widgets” (the stuff people actually want) and for everything else.
This is obviously very simplistic and reductionist, and doesn’t adequately address lots of things, like how increases in money supply in the US, being the world’s only real banker, can increase productivity outside the US that will ameliorate some of the negative effects in the US.
But it may help explain the long-term steady and recent rapid increase in the US of the prices of things like corporate stock, housing, food, cars, water, health care, good (as well as bad) education, and all the other widgets people really want.

現(xiàn)在有 3,000 美元的貨幣供應量，只生產(chǎn) 900 個產(chǎn)品，這是任何人真正想要的唯一東西（包括所有助手和所有窮人），而且現(xiàn)在助手和窮人有更多的錢了（或者至少，他們認為他們的錢多了）并且想要買更多的產(chǎn)品。所以產(chǎn)品的價格上升到每個 3.33 美元。
這就造成了更明顯的貧困和對政府幫助的更大的需求，這也意味著向非貧困者提供更多的錢來“幫助”窮人，實際上只有一小部分會真正的幫助到窮人。
這可能是一個非常緩慢的過程，這取決于貨幣供應量與人們真正想要的東西的生產(chǎn)之間的差距有多大，但在過去的十五年中，貨幣供應量一直在以非常快的速度增長。人們真正想要的東西的供應也在大幅增加，但增長速度還不夠快，無法吸收所有的貨幣增長量。
因此，無論是“產(chǎn)品”（人們真正想要的東西）還是其他所有東西，價格都在全面上漲。
這顯然是非常簡單和簡化的解決方式，并沒有充分解決很多問題，比如，作為世界上唯一真正的銀行家，美國增加貨幣供應如何能夠提高美國以外的生產(chǎn)率，從而減輕美國的一些負面影響。
但這可能有助于解釋為什么美國的股票、住房、食品、汽車、水、醫(yī)療保健、教育以及人們真正想要的所有其他東西的價格長期穩(wěn)定和近期快速上漲的現(xiàn)象。

** I’m not saying that ALL education, social work, etc., is unproductive. Some of it is indeed very productive, if done well. A good education is definitely a widget. But I have in mind the kind of spending that creates high school graduates in the DC School District who are functionally illiterate and have never learned to apply themselves to a task, take directions or behave civilly — at a cost of almost $400,000 a piece, and that creates large numbers of high school students in average school districts who need remedial education if they go to college, at a cost of $300,000 or so. The productivity of those teachers and administrators is probably less than zero in DC, and very low in average districts.
A widget-making company that did such a bad job would quickly be unable to sell enough widgets to keep going and close down because some other widget-making company would take all the widget business and be able to make a profit. Government enterprises practically never are shut down just because their productivity is low or negative. To the contrary, the usual method of handling such an enterprise is to print more money to give to it to pay higher salaries to the people who are not producing anything, on the theory that will make them produce more, or at least something. To the contrary, all it does is create more people who have money that they will want to use to buy widgets. Increasing the cost of widgets without actually producing any more widgets.
On reflection, I should clarify: When I suggest school teachers and administrators are low producers (in relation to cost) or non-producers, this is not necessarily a slam at those individuals, many of whom either A) are capable of providing a good education but are prevented from doing so by bad rules, like the habit of keeping disruptive students in classes where they can prevent any real education from happening or B) while not capable of providing a good education, would be perfectly capable of actually producing widgets (building houses, providing nursing care to sick patients, etc.)

我并不是說所有的教育、社會工作等都是徒勞的。如果做得好，其中一些確實非常富有成效。良好的教育絕對是必不可少。但我想到的是，在華盛頓學區(qū)培養(yǎng)出的高中畢業(yè)生，他們基本上是文盲，從來沒有學會如何投入到一項任務中，接受指示或舉止文明——每名學生的成本大約是40萬美元，這就造成了很多普通學區(qū)的高中生，如果他們上大學，就需要接受補習教育，費用大約是30萬美元。這些教師和行政人員的工作效率在華盛頓特區(qū)可能低于零，在普通學區(qū)也很低。
一個做得這么差的產(chǎn)品制造公司很快就會賣不出足夠的產(chǎn)品來維持運營，然后倒閉，因為其他的產(chǎn)品制造公司會拿走所有的產(chǎn)品業(yè)務，并能夠盈利。政府企業(yè)實際上從來不會僅僅因為它們的生產(chǎn)率低、消極而關閉企業(yè)。相反，處理這類企業(yè)的通常方法是印更多的錢給它，給不生產(chǎn)任何東西的人支付更高的工資，理論上這將使他們生產(chǎn)更多，或至少生產(chǎn)一些東西。而結果恰恰相反，這種方式所導致的只是讓更多的人有錢，而他們想用這些錢購買產(chǎn)品。增加了產(chǎn)品的成本而實際上沒有生產(chǎn)更多的產(chǎn)品。
經(jīng)過思考，我應該澄清：當我說學校教師和行政人員是低生產(chǎn)者(就成本而言)或非生產(chǎn)者時，這并不一定是對這些人的抨擊，A：他們中的許多人都有能力提供良好的教育，但卻因為一些不好的規(guī)則而無法做到這一點，比如把愛搗亂的學生留在課堂上的習慣，這樣他們就無法接受真正的教育。B：雖然不能提供良好的教育，但卻完全有能力制造產(chǎn)品(建造房屋，為病人提供護理等)

Aimlockbelch
Politicians and the wealthy.
Bernie Sanders was right about one thing (at least) - income inequality is FUCKED.
We NEED to get the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share. The tax burden for the middle and lower classes is atrocious.
Under trump I paid federal taxes for the first time in my entire life. Normally I get about a thousand dollar refund. Not in 2019. I paid more in taxes THAN FUCKING TRUMP!
What did we have to show for it? A bunch of very happy unregulated companies and a bunch of very satisfied fat cats.
When Biden goes to spend trillions of dollars, at least we have something to show for it. 11 million lifted out of poverty. 5.5 million prevented from sinking below the poverty line.
That was just 1800 dollars per person. Imagine if, instead of 1800 dollars, everyone just got paid a little more for the work they’re already doing. The federal minimum wage should be AT LEAST $15 if you factor in the cost of living increase over the past 12 years since the last time it was increased.
$7.25/hr is a slap in the face for a proud, American worker.
If politicians don’t fix the income gap, we’ll see another spike in poverty very soon. I’m ok with my taxes going up if I see systemic improvements. I saw none of that in the previous administration.

政客和富人。
伯尼·桑德斯至少有一件事是對的——收入不平等是不好的
我們需要讓富人和企業(yè)支付他們公平的份額。中下階層的稅收負擔非常沉重。
在特朗普的領導下我這輩子第一次交了聯(lián)邦稅，通常情況下，我會得到大約1000美元的退款。而在2019年卻沒有，我交的稅比他媽的川普還多！
我們要證明什么？一群非常開心的不受監(jiān)管的公司和一群非常滿意的肥貓。
當拜登花費數(shù)萬億美元時，至少我們有東西可以展示。比如1100萬人脫貧，550萬人免于陷入貧困線以下的生活。
那只是每人1800美元。想象一下，如果不是1800美元，每個人只能從他們已經(jīng)做的工作中得到了一點額外的報酬。如果你考慮到生活成本在過去12年的增長，那么聯(lián)邦最低工資應該至少是15美元。
每小時 7.25 美元對于驕傲的美國工人來說是一記耳光。
如果政客們不解決收入差距問題，我們很快就會看到另一個貧困高峰。如果我看到系統(tǒng)性的改善，我可以接受我的稅收增加。但我在上一屆政府中沒有看到這些。

David Miller
Democrat fools like Biden, Harris, Pelosi and Warren are the greatest threat to the cost of living right now. They would like to push through perhaps $10 trillion or more in new spending and YOU get stuck with the bill. You, your children, your grandchildren and great grand children. While they CLAIM it will “fix” issues such as poverty, equality, the environment and infrastructure, it couldn’t be further from the truth. It will be used pretty much exclusively for Democrat vote-buying efforts and payola for Dem loyalists for years to come. For example, thing for a moment about the real costs of admitting hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens (which has already been done) and flying them around the country regardless of whether they have Covid, Tuberculosis, Measles, or other transmissible diseases, and giving them free housing, food, education, medical care and anything else they need or want. You’re already saddled with that expense whether you like it or not, and they won’t do likewise for wounded US citizen veterans, which tells you oh so much about their values and priorities.
Now flash forward a few years to when the inflation they’re causing brings interest rates up to 5% or 8% or 12%. Apply that to our quickly growing national debt and you’ll realize that even applying EVERY CENT of tax dollars collected can’t pay off even the INTEREST on the national debt. So they will hike interest rates. And not just on the wealthy of course because even taking 100% of the income of the wealthy won’t make a dent in a cost this big. So expect 30%, 40%, 50% or more of your income to go to your taxes. How are you feeling now about those wacky Dems? Don’t say we didn’t warn you. We’ve been down this road before.

像拜登、哈里斯、佩洛西和沃倫這樣的民主黨傻瓜是目前生活成本的最大威脅。他們想推動可能達到 10 萬億美元或更多的新支出，而你卻被賬單所困。你，你的孩子，你的孫子和曾孫。雖然他們聲稱這將“解決”貧困、平等、環(huán)境和基礎設施等問題，但事實并非如此。在未來幾年，這些支出幾乎將專門用于民主黨的選票購買工作和為民主黨忠誠者提供的報酬。例如，讓成千上萬的非法移民入境的所需要的實際成本，無論他們是否患有 Covid、結核病、麻疹或其他傳染性疾病，并為他們提供免費住房、食物、教育、醫(yī)療以及他們需要或想要的任何其他東西。不管你喜不喜歡，你已經(jīng)背負了這筆費用，他們不會為受傷的美國公民退伍軍人做同樣的事情，這就告訴你他們的價值觀和優(yōu)先事項。
現(xiàn)在回顧這幾年，他們造成的通貨膨脹使利率上升到 5% 或 8% 或 12%。再看看我們快速增長的國債，你就會意識到，即使是把征收的每一分錢都用上，也無法償還國債的利息。所以他們會加息。當然不只是對富人因為即使拿走富人100%的收入也不會對這么大的成本產(chǎn)生任何影響。所以預計你收入的30%，40%，50%或更多要上繳稅款。你現(xiàn)在對那些古怪的民主黨人有什么看法？別說我們沒警告過你，我們以前也走過這條路。

Mauro Martinez
Poor money management. We have kids making 10.00 an hour so have 1200.00 cell phones, 1000.00 laptops. Starter families with 2 car payments, mortgage payment, school debt, and still spend 2,000 a year at Starbucks.
Entitled blame the wealthy. With no accountability of their own downfalls. Undereducated. No marketable work skills. No trade. No work history. No work ethics. Just pay them more is not the answer. This is the same backassward mentality that gives everyone in grade school a participation trophy. No incentive to do better than others. Where the drive to do better?
I pay a very large amount in taxes. No problem. I make good money. I don't expand anymore although my business is in high demand. There is no more incentive to expand and hire more people. Average income for my employees is 2k a week. Average. Some make much more. One wanted by the hour. He's been moved to janitorial services. Makes 450 a week 30 hours a week. He could have been making 4x as much if he had any work ethics. He's on probation now.. I have already have grounds for cause to fire but am giving him one more chance.
Remove all tax incentives for big business to expand and hire more. That'll help the economy, right? Give government more money because they've proven to be so good at handling their own budget, right? Give to those who aren't working because that's giving them participation trophies for not contributing to the economy, right? They'll help America as a whole, right? Add another 3.5 trillion to the deficit ( 9 million over 20 years with interest) to do exactly what? Free college for everyone! Ridiculous.

資金管理不善。我們的孩子每小時賺10.00美元，所以我們有1200.00美元的手機，1000.00美元筆記本電腦。剛起步的家庭有兩輛汽車貸款，抵押貸款，學校貸款，每年還要在星巴克消費2000美元。
有權責怪富人。他們對自己的失敗不負責任。未受良好教育的。沒有適合市場的工作技能。沒有貿(mào)易。沒有工作經(jīng)歷。沒有職業(yè)道德。給他們更多的錢并不是解決問題的辦法。這是同樣的落后心態(tài)，就好比在小學給每個人一個參與獎杯。沒有比別人做得更好的想法。就這樣，哪里有動力做得更好？
我繳納了大量的稅款。這沒問題，因為我賺了很多錢。盡管我的業(yè)務需求量很大，但我不再擴張了。因為我沒有更多的動力來擴大生產(chǎn)并且雇用更多的人。我員工的平均收入是每周 2k。這是個平均值。當然有些員工賺得更多。有一個人想按照小時計算工資，他被轉移到清潔服務部門，每周掙 450美元，每周工作 30 小時。如果他有任何職業(yè)道德，他本可以賺到原來的 4 倍的錢。他現(xiàn)在在緩刑期，我已經(jīng)有理由解雇他了，但我會再給他一次機會。
取消所有鼓勵大企業(yè)擴張和雇傭更多員工的稅收優(yōu)惠。這對經(jīng)濟有幫助，對吧？給政府更多的錢因為事實證明他們很擅長處理自己的預算，對吧？給那些沒有工作的人錢因為這是給他們沒有為經(jīng)濟做出貢獻的參與獎，對吧？他們會幫助整個美國，對吧？再增加3.5萬億赤字(20年900萬美元帶利息)到底能起什么作用？免費上大學！荒謬。

Salvatore Barrera
In actuality, because of President Biden’s great help of assisting the nation, Americans, businesses, homes, rental and mortgage aid, and so on and so forth, by dispensing at least $6 trillion because of the affects/defects of COVID-19 inflation is expected to rise almost 6% this year……...making food prices increase with the obvious energy prices, and consumer prices too.
Also, as you already know…… the deferment of paying your leases, rents, and mortgages will be DUE soon and many of the leases, rents, and mortgages would need to be re-negotiated with the banks and landlords because, if I read correctly a few months ago, the average debt from unpaid leases, unpaid rents, and unpaid mortgages is about $12,000 per that has not been paid because of COVID-19.

事實上，由于拜登總統(tǒng)在幫助國家、美國人、企業(yè)、住房、租賃和抵押貸款等方面的巨大幫助，再加上新冠肺炎的影響，今年預計通脹將上升近6% .........使得食品價格隨著明顯的能源價格而上漲，消費品價格也隨之上漲。
還有，你已經(jīng)知道的……你延期支付的租金，抵押貸款即將到期，很多租金和抵押貸款需要同銀行和房東重新協(xié)商，因為，如果我沒看錯的話，由于COVID-19而未支付的租金和抵押貸款的平均債務約為1.2萬美元。

Robert Rossney
Rents.
I mean that in the economic sense, not in the sense of money paid for housing (though money paid for housing certainly counts). Rent-seeking, the effort to increase one’s share of wealth without creating new wealth, is where the lion’s share of economic innovation has been happening in the US for the last several decades.
This obviously happens in the realm of housing. But it’s also true now of so many other things: health and auto insurance, telecommunications services, the gradual shift of everything to subscxtion-based models, the unrepair ability of consumer goods: just look through your credit-card statement and you’ll see dozens of things that you’re paying for but never buying. Count all the obxts in your house that you possess but do not own, or that you will have to throw away and repurchase if they ever stop working.
All of this is economic actors trying to grab a share of wealth without doing anything that actually creates wealth. Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash don’t make anything; they reallocate existing resources that they don’t own and charge you a premium for that reallocation. That’s all very clever, but it isn’t making anything.
MoviePass is, in ways, the optimal rent-based-economic business. Sure, they lost money on every subscxtion, and selling things for less than you paid for them can’t go on forever, and they had to shut down. But before they shut down, they changed a lot of users’ passwords, so that they could continue charging those users without providing them any services at all.

租金
我指的是經(jīng)濟意義上的，而不是為住房支付的錢(盡管為住房支付的錢也很重要)。尋租，即在不創(chuàng)造新財富的情況下增加自己的財富份額的努力，是過去幾十年美國經(jīng)濟創(chuàng)新的最大組成部分。
這顯然發(fā)生在住房領域。但現(xiàn)在很多其他事情也是如此：健康和汽車保險，電信業(yè)務，一切都逐漸向基于訂閱的模式轉變，消費品的不可修復能力：只要看看你的信用卡賬單，你就會看到許多你付了錢卻沒買的東西。數(shù)一數(shù)你房子里所有你擁有但又不擁有的東西，或者如果它們停止工作，你將不得不扔掉并重新購買的東西。
所有這些都是經(jīng)濟參與者試圖攫取財富的一部分，而沒有采取任何實際創(chuàng)造財富的行動。Uber、Lyft和DoorDash什么都不做；他們重新分配他們不擁有的現(xiàn)有資源，并向你收取額外的費用。這一切都很聰明，但它并沒有制造任何東西。
從某種意義上說，MoviePass是最優(yōu)的以租金為基礎的經(jīng)濟業(yè)務。當然，他們每次訂閱都賠錢，并以低于你支付的價格出售東西，這不可能永遠持續(xù)下去，他們不得不關閉業(yè)務。但在關閉之前，他們更改了很多用戶的密碼，這樣他們就可以繼續(xù)向這些用戶收費，而不提供任何服務。

Phoebe Pattinson
Air pollution and climate change
-according to WHO, nine in 10 people breathe air that contains microscopic pollutants that can damage their lungs, heart, and brain. Burning fossil fuels, which is the main cause of air pollution, also contributes to climate change.
Noncommunicable diseases
-The five risk factors that are driving the increase in noncommunicable diseases are tobacco use, alcohol use, physical inactivity, unhealthy diets, and air pollution, WHO notes.
Fragile settings
-Over 22% of the world's population lives in fragile settings, which are defined as places where access to basic health care is minimal, often due to being in a state of crisis and having poor health services.
Vaccine
-Currently, vaccination prevents between two and three million deaths per year—but it could potentially prevent another 1.5 million deaths if more people were vaccinated, according to WHO.

空氣污染和氣候變化
據(jù)世界衛(wèi)生組織稱，十分之九的人呼吸的空氣中含有微小的污染物，這些污染物會損害他們的肺、心臟和大腦。燃燒化石燃料是造成空氣污染的主要原因，也會導致氣候變化。
非傳染性疾病
世衛(wèi)組織指出，導致非傳染性疾病增加的五個風險因素是吸煙、飲酒、缺乏體育活動、不健康飲食和空氣污染。
脆弱的環(huán)境
世界上22%以上的人口生活在脆弱環(huán)境中，脆弱環(huán)境的定義是，由于處于危機狀態(tài)中并且保健服務差，基本保健服務的獲得程度最低的環(huán)境。
疫苗
目前，接種疫苗每年可預防200萬至300萬人死亡，但據(jù)世衛(wèi)組織稱，如果有更多的人接種疫苗，它可能還可以防止150萬人死亡。

Micheal
Inflation which is excessive and well above normal has been happening since January 20. Prices are up significantly thanks to Biden’s policy of restricting US energy production. Bidenflation is not just a future threat, it has already been happening for months.
The stated obxtive of Biden’s Democrat Party is to get the US price for gasoline up to the same level as Western Europe, currently about $6.50 per gallon. You can read this in Al Gore’s book and other Democrat literature. They will do this through restrictions on production as Biden has been unilaterally doing since January 20, 2021, and through excessive taxation such as “carbon tax,” “mileage tax,” added gasoline taxes, etc., etc. as soon as they can get them passed through congress.
This effort will drive up the price of everything just as we are seeing since it takes energy to produce and transport everything.
Of course this Democrat policy erodes everyone’s buying power but it is catastrophic for the poor and for retired people. For example, think about the effect of soaring gasoline prices on low income people who have to drive to work.
The National average pump price for Trumpgas for calendar year 2019 was $2.60 in a prosperous, robust economy where gas prices would be expected to be high. As of August 10, 2021, the National average pump price for Bidengas is $3.19 in a recovering but still sluggish economy.
I experienced the terrible Jimmy Carter inflation of the 1970’s. It ate away everyone’s income and savings but particularly hurt the poor and elderly. Bidenflation isn’t as bad yet but it is going in that direction.

自1月20日以來，已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)了遠遠高于正常水平的過度通脹。拜登限制美國能源生產(chǎn)的政策導致油價大幅上漲。拜登通脹不僅是未來的威脅，它已經(jīng)發(fā)生了好幾個月了。
拜登所在的民主黨的公開目標是讓美國的汽油價格升至西歐的水平，目前約為每加侖6.5美元。你可以在戈爾的書和其他民主黨文獻中了解到這一點。他們將像拜登從2021年1月20日開始單方面采取的措施一樣，只要在國會獲得通過，他們就會限制生產(chǎn)和征收“碳稅”、“行駛里程稅”、附加汽油稅等過度征稅等方式。
正如我們所看到的，這種努力將推高所有東西的價格，因為生產(chǎn)和運輸所有東西都需要能源。
當然，民主黨的這項政策削弱了每個人的購買力，但對窮人和退休人員來說是災難性的。例如，想想飆升的汽油價格對那些不得不開車上班的低收入人群的影響。
在一個繁榮、強勁的經(jīng)濟環(huán)境下，天然氣的2019年全國平均零售價為2.6美元，預計天然氣價格將會很高。截至2021年8月10日，在經(jīng)濟復蘇但仍然低迷的情況下，天然氣的全國平均零售價為3.19美元。
我經(jīng)歷了20世紀70年代吉米·卡特時期的可怕的通貨膨脹。它消耗了每個人的收入和儲蓄，但對窮人和老年人的傷害尤其嚴重。拜登時期的通貨膨脹還沒有那么糟糕，但正在朝那個方向發(fā)展。