Most importantly, the author claims in the first couple of lines that "Is it possible to decrease inflation without causing a recession and its concomitant increase in unemployment? The orthodox answer is “no”. " It's quite an assertion. All other information provided in the argument has acutally led to this certain conclusion, including the "controversial policy" from most of the economics. And, the policy is not so controversial either. In the argument. As you've pointed out, the argument asserts that "most economists agree that tight monetary and fiscal policies...", and, in my point, "some governments’ policymakers insist that direct controls on wages and process, without tight monetary and fiscal policies" is not so much as an adequate challenge against the point of most economists, that is, the control solution is at most an alternative, rather than a replacement, which could result the wording "controversial", to the monetary polocies. If we say something is controversial, in most cases, we mean that it is either wrong or right, either applicable or infeasible, or something like this. This is my position. Wish it helps and open for discussion... | 
