True, the sentence about the items loosing value is incorrect.
However, my argument is still valid, why would I go and buy the thing in the first place, if I just could have waited for today and still have 4$? I would have „gained“ a dollar by doing nothing instead of taking the trouble of procuring the item.
Complete layman’s take on deflation, but wouldn’t trading basically stop with deflation?
Say I buy a product for 4$ and the next day due to deflation I can only sell it for 3$, why would I then go and try to trade said product?
It would be bad to have anything on shelf for a prolonged period. Food would probably not be affected due to its short shelf-time, but hardware stores, electronics, basically anything else would have the risk of significant losses. These stores would simply close, no?
That also extends to global trade - big cargo ships are sailing for weeks before they can distribute their goods. The whole time the products would loose value.
Probably I’m wrong, but if that’s true, deflation would really make the shit hit the fan.
Yield over die area should be the metric.
If you have a chip that is 50% of the wafer area, a single fault will lead to a yield of 50%. Now compare it with a chip that is 1% of the wafer area, the same single fault gets a yield of 99%.
So comparing the yields of two processes without factoring in the die area is not a fair game.
Of course, im exaggerating for simplicity.
As I said the my first comment, I’m talking about stuff that may be shelved a longer time. And at large scales, small percentages do matter significantly.
With inflation, having something shelved only looses value if something newer and better comes out. Deflation would add deflation itself as another risk.
To put it in other words: I have to raise the price for my items in stock along with deflation to make the trade worthwhile, which in turn contradicts deflation since then the value you get for your money is the same.