左派のノーベル経済学者　クルーグマンが何を言ってるかわからない。　英語モメン教えて

Covid-19 has led to a number of shortages. It has also, as a consequence, produced an epidemic of price-gouging.Crucially, the Trump administration’s refusal to make s
erious use of the Defense Production Act has left states competing with each other for critical medical supplies, from ventilators to personal protective equipment, leadi
ng to soaring prices.But is price-gouging in the wake of a disaster bad? Most people instinctively feel that it is ? that those who happen to be in possession of crucial su
pplies in a time of extreme shortages shouldn’t be allowed to make a killing by selling those supplies at very high prices. To the extent that economists have thought abo
ut it, however, they tend to argue that we should let markets work, that putting a lid on price increases is counterproductive.There seem to have been very few attempts to
think through why, exactly, most people feel that price-gouging is bad; this is one of the few examples I’ve been able to find. www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2767327.. But I’d
argue that the public is right and many (most?) economists are wrong.The piece linked above makes the case in terms of the morality of the seller’s actions: is it right to t
ake advantage of peoples’ distress? Without disagreeing that this is a relevant question, I find it helpful to think in terms of distributive justice. The classic argument here
is that of Rawls, who argued that we should evaluate social arrangements by imagining ourselves having to choose institutions and policy behind a “veil of ignorance”: wha
t society would you prefer if you didn’t know who you would be? If you assume that we’re going to need to rely on a market economy, a Rawlsian approach doesn’t prescr
ibe complete equality: in reality, people do know who they are, and must be given incentives to produce. But it does say that you want a strong safety netpaid for with prog
ressive taxes, because the assurance that you will be able to afford essentials if you end up poor matters much more than how much luxury you’ll be able to afford if you
end up rich.Suppose, however, that we already have progressive taxes and a safety net ? that we have, in effect, made our choice about how much inequality to have ? and
then disaster strikes. How does this change things?Answer: if disasters are followed by a free-for-all, with very high prices for essentials, the stakes of inequality become
much higher. Those who can’t afford high prices face extreme privation, even death, while those with sufficient wealth face no more than inconvenience.ompare this with a
regime in which disasters are followed by temporary price controls and rationing of essentials based on need. If you had to decide between these regimes ex ante, behind t
he veil of ignorance, which would you choose? The answer, it seems clear, is that you’d choose rules of the game in which profiteering and price-gouging in the aftermath o
f disaster are prohibited. You really don’t want a society in which low income means death in times of disaster. So even if you believe that the best system for normal time
s is to let markets rip and soften the impact of inequality with taxes and transfers, it makes sense to temporarily move to price controls and rationing in the face of disaste
r.Maybe rules against price-gouging hurt economic efficiency in the sense that they reduce the sum of consumer and producer surplus. But economics is about people; and
human welfare sometimes requires looking beyond dollars and cents.
https://twitter.com/paulkrugman

グーグル翻訳かけると「非常時に物価が上がって貧乏人が死にます」と読めるんだけどクルーグマンはそんなこと言わないよね
誰か要旨を教えてくれ

あとクルーグマンに「英語翻訳かけてる日本だが主旨がわからないんで短文でまとめてくれ」ってメッセージ送りたいので
その英文教えてくれ

コロナのせいで色々不足する。その結果、価格ののつり上げもおこる。
トランプ政権による国防産業法の厳密な適用の否定は、人口呼吸器から個人向けの保護具に至るまで、
各州の医療用品供給競争を引き起こし価格上昇を招く。

でもそれって悪いことか？みんな普通にそう思うか？
すごく物が不足してるときにいっぱい持ってる奴が貴音で売りつけて大儲けすることは許されるべきではない。
しかしながら、経済学者はこういう時、市場に任せろ価格を押さえつけるのは逆効果だと考えることが多かった。

A:やっぱ便乗値上げはダメでしょ

みたいな結論が書いてある