The vast majority of economists understand that economy-wide price controls are a bad idea. The reason is that they prevent prices from adjusting in individual markets. Supplies and demands for various goods change a lot, and avoiding price controls allows prices to adjust to those changes in supplies and demands. We saw a huge problem with President Nixon’s price controls in 1973, when the prices his controllers had set for oil and gasoline were based on a world price of oil of about $3 per barrel. In the fall of 1973, when a suddenly powerful OPEC raised the world price of oil to about $11 dollars per barrel, there was a shortage of oil and gasoline. People who drove vehicles during that time probably remember their frustrating time in line, sometimes to buy less than a full tank of gasoline.
Price controls don’t work, period. You might think that’s the end of the story. Unfortunately, it’s not. Economists occasionally give sophisticated justifications for policies that are bound to fail. Because price controls are so destructive, it’s important to say what’s wrong with economic thinking that lays the groundwork for such controls. It’s also important to say, yet again and if only briefly, what’s wrong with wage and price controls.
This is from David R. Henderson, “Saying No (Again) to Wage and Price Controls,” Defining Ideas, February 2, 2023.
In it I criticize Paul Krugman for coming very close to advocating them and Olivier Blanchard for laying some of the groundwork. I also criticize Blanchard for getting causation on lower inflation and slower growth wrong.
I write:
If you get the causation wrong, you can be led to some bad policies. If you think, for example, that slowing growth will reduce inflation, you might be tempted to advocate higher tax rates or more regulation, both of which would slow growth but would do nothing to reduce inflation.
To drive the point home, I used a joke, but my editor said that it didn’t clearly apply. So he deleted it. If it didn’t work for him, it didn’t work. But see what you think. Here’s the joke:
I’m reminded of the old joke about the guy who calls 911 because he discovers his wife on the floor, having bled from a bullet wound. The 911 operator asks if she’s dead. He answers, “I think so.” “Well, make sure,” says the operator. “Ok,” says the husband. A few seconds later, the operator hears a gun fire twice. “Ok,” says the husband, “she’s dead.”
READER COMMENTS
Monte
Feb 3 2023 at 1:08pm
Dr. Henderson,
I agree with the editor. I see no relationship at all between this joke and wage and price controls. This is more about allocative efficiency, or the lack thereof. Allow me to explain.
The 911 operator is to be commended for attempting to ascertain the death of the wife before dispatching any resources. This is an example of allocative efficiency. The husband, OTOH, is guilty of failing to determine if his wife is dead before wasting additional resources. This is an example of allocative inefficiency.
But the more pertinent question is: What did the wife do to cause her husband to shoot her in the first place? :-j
David Henderson
Feb 3 2023 at 1:28pm
Your response is further evidence for the editor’s judgment but not for the reason you think. The joke was about the connection between slowing the economy and reducing inflation. It had nothing to do with price controls.
He didn’t shoot her in the first place: that’s why the word “discovers.”
Monte
Feb 3 2023 at 1:45pm
I stand corrected on the connection, but we’ll have to wait on the ballistics report to determine if the husband is guilty of first or second degree murder.
vince
Feb 3 2023 at 1:28pm
The joke fits with the line “If you get the causation wrong, you can be led to some bad policies.”
More importantly, the joke is hilarious. Thanks for sharing.
David Henderson
Feb 3 2023 at 1:29pm
You’re welcome.
David Seltzer
Feb 3 2023 at 1:42pm
Very funny. Watch out for the two shots.
Mark Barbieri
Feb 4 2023 at 4:01pm
Outstanding article. I particularly liked the line “You can’t explain a change by pointing to something that’s constant.” because I see people doing that all too often.
And good luck getting Paul Krugman to speak out against rent control. He makes a very good living telling people on the left what they want to hear. He’s not going to anger his audience with inconvenient facts. I think the best you can hope for is his staying quiet on the topic.
David Henderson
Feb 4 2023 at 6:31pm
Thanks, Mark.
Comments are closed.