Depositphotos_79412408_S-300x300.jpg

i amn In recent years, fears of inflation and the possibility of a recession have made headlines, especially as the Federal Reserve has raised interest rates to control inflation. In a recently published article The Washington Post, historian Meg Jacobs and economist Isabella Weber suggest alternative ways to combat inflation. Instead of fighting inflation by raising interest rates and risking the possibility of a deep recession, Jacobs and Weber argue that implementing price controls would be a more effective way to control inflation. As they argue, although “price controls have a bad reputation politically and a record of mixed success, they worked in one of the most important cases in American history—World War II. And the difference between that case and the subsequent failure,” such as Nixon’s wage and price in the 1970s. The implementation of regulation, “reveals how policymakers can effectively manage this tool.”

The question of whether to regulate “work” to combat inflation has broad implications for our understanding of basic price theory. As I argue below, the only way to control prices to fight inflation is to “work”. Price issues marching orders to resolve a technical issue. However, the price is the real deal Provides guiding signals for solving an economic problem Allocating scarce resources according to their valuation of competing consumer uses. Whether Jacobs and Weber are unaware of this distinction is not my point. per. Rather, to illustrate this, From their own point of viewThe only way their argument “works”, is to claim that price controls can fight inflation.

The basic nature of a technical problem is to allocate a given resource to a single, given objective. In the wake of World War II, the Office of Price Administration and Civil Supplies, created in 1941 and run from 1942 to 1946 by the Office of Price Administration (OPA), effectively abolished free market prices for all goods and services. The US, however, did not Officially By abolishing private property rights during this period, price controls, in effect, create a limitation on the ability to exchange on mutually agreed terms, and therefore a actually Personal property restrictions.

Actually, the actually Control of the factors of production (such as land, labor, capital, and other means of production) through price controls administered by the OPA and other government agencies replaced a free market and militarized the US economy for a single, overriding purpose: defeating the Axis. In a total war of power situation, however, valuations of the factors of production are not derived from competitive valuations among consumers for final goods and services. Rather, the goals and plans of individuals (consumers and producers alike) are overridden by a technical problem: the allocation of resources toward the destruction of the enemy. Friedrich A. Hayek elaborated on this point:

  • The problems faced by the director of all the economic activities of a community would be the same as those solved by an engineer only if the order of importance of the various needs of the community were determined in such a definite and absolute manner that provision. For one can always be made regardless of cost. If it were possible for him to decide upon the best means of producing the necessary supply of food as the most important need, as if it were the only need, and to think of the supply, say of clothing, only if and when some means remained after the demand for food was fully satisfied, Then there will be no economic problems. For in this case, there would be nothing left but what could not be used for the first purpose, because it could not be turned into food or there was no longer any demand for food. The criterion is simply whether the maximum possible foodstuff has been produced or whether the application of different methods can result in a greater output (emphasis added, 1935, pp. 5-6).

“The lessons that Jacobs and Weber claim to draw about the role of WWII price controls are irrelevant to the present-day issue of inflation control, because their example of “success” assumes the role that markets play in resolving prices. economic problems“….

In contrast, the lessons that Jacobs and Weber claim to draw about the role of WWII price controls are irrelevant to the present-day issue of inflation control, because their example of “success” assumes the role that markets play in setting prices. a economic problems: Allocating scarce resources among multiple, and often conflicting, consumer uses. “The key to price stability,” Jacobs and Weber argue, “lies in politics: a strong coalition and a broad-based social commitment are critical to the effective implementation of electoral controls as a means of reducing inflation.” However benign this type of government regulation may sound, it cannot hide the fact that prices here are assumed to function like a set of marching orders dictated from the top down to which individuals passively respond to the fulfillment of a single, overriding end.

Here is my point no The argument was that inflation actually Controlled during World War II, as claimed by Jacobs and Weber. Rather, it is argued that the only way Jacobs and Weber’s argument can retain validity is if consumers and producers are assumed to set prices in a completely passive manner. This underlying assumption not only renders the argument inapplicable to remedying inflation today, but it also proved inconclusive in the context of World War II, since discussion of the secondary effects of price controls completely absent. Simon Kuznets, a Nobel laureate in economics for his work on measuring GDP, explained in his book After the End of World War II, Wartime National Product. His argument then casts serious doubt relevant to Jacobs and Weber’s claims today, and just as applicable to the possibility of price controls in controlling inflation today:

  • Price indices do not fully reflect qualitative deterioration of goods and services; ‘Pricing’ which takes the form of adding superficial and undesirable elements to a good, essentially to raise it to a higher price bracket without violating price norms; discounts or reductions in services previously offered with durable goods; black market pricing; and the general effect of narrow freedom of choice on the part of civilian buyers (Kuznets 1945, p. 39).

Kuznets is highlighted coordination process Prices that arise in situations where there is relatively more money competing for relatively fewer goods (i.e. inflation). Consumers for final goods will compete against each other by offering higher prices, and consequently, producers of such final goods (i.e. consumers of scarce resources) will compete against each other by offering higher prices in response to such consumer valuations. To solve this economic problem if prices are not allowed to respond to such competitive demands because price controls are implemented, the results described by Kuznets above will result.

For more on this, see

In short, concluding that price controls are an effective means of combating inflation is wrongly based on an unrealistic and flawed understanding of prices as a set of marching orders to which individuals respond passively. However, in the real world value is actively produced through competition between consumers for goods and services and competition between producers for factors of production. The result is that market prices act as a set of guidelines or traffic signals to coordinate the plans of consumers and producers in a peaceful and productive manner. If prices act as “systems of telecommunications” as FA Hayek taught us (1945, p. 527), then interference with the guiding function of market prices can never eliminate inflation; Rather, relative prices will only adjust to account for inflation and price control constraints.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.