> I like how you vaulted straight over the defensible middle-ground "hotels charging more during big events isn't actually the same thing as price-gouging" argument and went straight to defending incontrovertible, life-threatening, criminal-in-34-states price-gouging.

I did that because it clearly raises the bar for my argument. I have more to prove in the harder cases. And yes, I do think the logic holds despite what our emotions tell us, and I think that for the most part the laws are wrong.

> No. It's it's making sure they're only consumed by those with the most money.

Again, I'm granting that emergencies and other demand/supply shocks heighten the problems caused by inequality, and again, I'm granting that that's not ok and should be tackled appropriately by policy. I'm arguing that the price system is not the best way to tackle this and leads to other problems. This will seem a bit off-topic, but Chile tackled a similar problem in their water system by transferring cash to poor populations while letting their prices for water rise [1]. (This is only meant to illustrate how you can use more than one policy mechanism to tackle separate problems: prices for allocation, transfers for inequality).

You're right, people with the most money can purchase more, but you also have to think about how you allocate scarce resources in the absence of a rise in price: is it first-come-first-serve? Does everyone get the same amount? You have to have some other mechanism to allocate the scarce resources and they each have their problems.

Also, you must think about the supply side. People will find a way to supply areas with high prices. People are creative. In fact, the high prices in the Omaha rental market spurring people to turn to Airbnb is a perfect example of why we should let prices rise.

[1] http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/book/10.1596/1813-9450-244...

It's true that first-come-first-served isn't optimal, but at least it's not as brazenly monstrous as turning away people whose need is just as great because they can't afford to line your pockets as thoroughly. Limiting the amount per customer has a lot of potential, though.

You're also assuming that profit-gouged emergency supplies are necessarily limited. If the local water supply has failed after a hurricane, and you've got enough bottled water to comfortably supply your community, you've still got a captive audience; you can maximize your profits by forcing them to empty their wallets to survive, if you're an asshole.

> You're also assuming that profit-gouged emergency supplies are necessarily limited.

You're right, I'm making this assumption. I have to make this assumption assuming there are at least a few possible suppliers (i.e. a few gas stations or convenience stores) because otherwise there would be no supply shock and concomitant price increase.

> and you've got enough bottled water to comfortably supply your community

Here I would say you're begging an important question, which is in regards to who has this and other important information? How would a convenience store owner know that the overall bottled water supply in the area is enough or not - and how could they possible make those calculations in time to properly allocate the water? Prices are a great way to spread information and incentivize people to get creative in finding a solution. If bottled water prices go up 10x, I guarantee you people will find a way to get more bottled water there.

Here are some more thoughts from people far smarter than me:

Tyler Cowen: "I agree gouging should not be illegal" [1]

Paul Krugman: [On Uber's 7x surge pricing during horrible snowstorms in New York] "This makes a lot of sense from a rational economic point of view" [2]

[1] http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2003/09/mor...

[2] http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/uber-and-the-mac...

"A rational economic point of view" means that you value your personal cash flow (including factors like long-term customer goodwill, admittedly) over other concerns, which is what I already said. If someone gives you a magic button that kills one random stranger and then turns into a $100 bill, the rational economic decision is to press it. You're not scoring any points here.

No, Krugman is making the point (in his whole blog post) that price "gouging" allocates resources in the best possible way, and that our emotional response to it sometimes confounds this "first best" outcome. Which is actually a good description of the debate we're having here (on the broader thread).

You keep saying "your personal cash flow" as if I or Krugman or others actually do make a buck off selling services to those in distress. I work in climate policy; I don't sell anything. You seem to think it's not even possible for me to actually, really, think that our natural, emotional responses to price "gouging" does us a disservice. I don't have anything to gain except a world that works a bit better.