Price controls VERY occasionally have their uses — during wartime when rationing is rampant and perceived fairness/lack of profiteering are important 2/
There's also a *possible* argument for temporary controls to break a wage-price spiral that is persisting despite a weak economy — although making that work is so hard that it would be a strategy of last resort 3/
But we don't have a weak economy; we have inflation because we have a booming economy, with supply chains having trouble keeping up with the boom in goods consumption. And there's no hint of a wage-price spiral 4/
I think — probably, maybe, I hope — that inflation will subside as demand gets less skewed and supply chains adjust. Price controls would just screw up that adjustment. Not all bad ideas come from the right 5/

なお、この一連のツイートのうち最初のものは削除されており、代わりに以下のお詫びツイートが出されている(H/T タイラー・コーエン)。

Deleting, with extreme apologies, my tweet about Isabella Weber on price controls. No excuses. It's always wrong to use that tone against anyone arguing in good faith, no matter how much you disagree — especially when there's so much bad faith out there.


What follows is a THREAD, posted on behalf of Professor James Galbraith, who is not on Twitter but who asked me to share his reaction to this. https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1476551183414312971
"I'll bet that Paul Krugman has not read Isabella Weber's magisterial history, How China Escaped Shock Therapy, recommended by Adam Tooze in Foreign Policy, by Martin Wolf in the Financial Times, and by yours truly in Project Syndicate, among many other plaudits and prizes...
If he had, Krugman might be aware that Professor Weber knows a great deal about price controls and their role in a larger policy setting. And not only in China, but also in the US, which Chinese reformers studied closely in coming to their decisions...
In The Guardian, Weber provides careful parallels to the spring of 1946, when Paul Samuelson – Krugman's own chief mentor – signed a letter to The New York Times urging continued price controls, given ongoing bottlenecks and temporary shortages – precisely today's situation...
The point of strategic price control, then and now, was to prevent an outbreak of inflation, followed by loss of purchasing power and confidence. A further purpose now, not relevant yet in 1946, is to forestall counterproductive hikes in interest rates by the Federal Reserve...
By releasing oil from the SPR, and by intervening in the ports, the Biden administration has shown that it understands the critical role of key prices, and is acting directly to bring them down. Weber's argument is in full sympathy with this selective policy...
Krugman's tweets, by contrast, are the trite repetition of textbook banalities. They show no knowledge or policy imagination. His slur on Weber – and by extension on Samuelson – is shameful.
Many thanks to Stephanie Kelton for giving an outlet to these remarks." /end
以下はジェームズ・ガルブレイス教授の代理で投稿するスレッドである。氏はツイッターアカウントを持っていないが、https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1476551183414312971 への彼の反論をシェアしてほしいと私に頼まれた。