Does one person with a million dollars in excess liquidity to spend on water represent a greater "need" than one million people with no liquidity to spare?
Would it be moral for that person to buy more than they need, solely to inflate prices? Would the resulting spot price in the market be in any way a meaningful gauge of the actual need?
Market prices are only one gauge, and they are pretty faulty, easily manipulated one at that.
Next up, you'll probably tell me that story points are a solid basis for predicting delivery times and making decisions about resource allocation.
In the current situation, if a business owner decides to drop you on the ground, you're literally gonna starve to death in the next month.
That's not true at all. We have an extensive network of assistance programs. Of course these programs can be better in numerous ways. Nevertheless, nobody is starving in the street in the US.
That the accepted answer to this question has become "who has the most money?" is a victory for... well, the people with the most money, so I guess we can call this a sterling example of the effects of income inequality. The vast majority not only don't have the majority of the money; they don't even have the moral standing of "legitimate" need.
Money is still really important, but it’s dishonest and counterfactual to argue that mere access to liquidity can determine the clearing price for a market.
We know it doesn’t. That’s why we have the Fed.
It's mildly astonishing to me that someone would attempt to make an argument in favor of not regulating absurd prices by comparing the alternative to gruesome public execution. Even ignoring the hyperbole, it isn't a very compelling argument; yes, we all agree that destroying the economy is bad, but the whole discussion is about whether enacting these regulations would _actually_ harm the economy more than it helps, so just asserting that it would with an exaggerated metaphor doesn't really add anything useful.
That's true. Don't you think it's also true that those who need a good more have a greater desire to pay for that good? I understand that not everyone has the same ability to pay, but we can't crucify the market on the cross of equity. History shows that when you try to allocate goods based on feelings (some random official's idea of "need") and not prices (which reflect true preferences), you create shortages, black markets, and misery. Command economies just don't work.
There are ways of addressing monetary inequality (e.g., a stipend) in an emergency that don't break the fundamental resource allocation function of the market.