You’re literally just proving their point. You’re going to wait till prices drop to buy. In a deflationary environment, everyone will do the same.
“But when they go back to normal, I’ll buy” you keep saying. 1, what’s normal? And 2, what happens when they go back to normal but the expectation is that they’ll go lower than that? Do you buy at the “normal” price or wait till it goes even lower?? You’ll say you’ll buy at the normal price to be argumentative on Reddit, but the reality is most people will keep waiting if they believe prices will continue to fall.
Food is a bad example, since we all have to buy food anyway. All you’re doing is quibbling over which foods you’ll buy.
Better to use an example like a new car or TV (assuming they’re upgrade purchases and not necessary replacements.)
In the context that we’re talking about here, the main issue is how these factors affect discretionary spending, not spending on necessities.
Run your examples back, inserting “new TV” in place of eggs or beef or whatever, and then the answers will more cleanly lead to the understanding you’re looking for.
Why would you buy eggs today for 2$ if they drop to 1.50tomorrow? why not jsut wait till tomorrow? but tomorrow you understand that they will drop to 1.25$ the day after, so you wait. And so on and so forth, people in deflationary economies wait until the las possible moment to buy food. And they never buy consumer goods like shoes/clothes etc. unless it is absolutely critical.
Not what previous incidents have shown, your trust me bro doesn work when we have historical examples of deflationary crisis. Ok then dont think eggs, think a shirt, why would you ever buy a shirt, if it constantly gettign cheaper, you dotn need a shirt to survive.
You are either being obtuse on purpose or just plain stupid.
But you'll still buy only what you can eat right? Why would you buy eggs for one week if they'll get cheaper? You'll only buy things when you absolutely need them and delay your purchases as long as possible. That's hell for economy.
I think the miscommunication is stemming from your different perspectives. You're describing a tree. The person you're talking to is describing a forest.
The other issue, largely ignored in the comments, is that wages also will get smaller. When things are sold at lower prices, that means the people selling those things make less money. So you're either laying off employees or cutting wages to stay solvent. Everyone is making less money, which means they spend less, which causes prices to cut drop further, which causes lower profits, which causes unemployment and lower wages, which causes less spending, which causes ... and on and on.
251
u/Grouchy_Theme1461 7h ago
bruh u gotta explain it