This actually is the idea with truly “free market” thinking, no? The money wasted in a crisis, and the companies killed who would’ve otherwise limped through, is all assumed to be less waste and a better outcome than the alternative we get if we prevent scalpers and/or cap the prices. In this theoretical world, we waste more money when supply runs out too fast, and we get companies that are not as good at competing because they limped through.

The big question economically is whether these assumptions are generally correct. We have evidence in both directions, enough that most people can comfortably stick to their opinions and learned assumptions and political tribes. But is there a way to demonstrate that the money wasted is greater with hoarding/scalping than without, and under what conditions?