> But once we're in a "rich asshole can buy out the supply of life-saving equipment by outbidding hospitals" territory, ... Price increases also discourage the

> But once we're in a "rich asshole can buy out the supply of life-saving equipment by outbidding hospitals" territory, ... Price increases also discourage the wealthy from buying more than they need. There is no doubt that the effect of higher prices matters less to them, but it still will encourage them to buy less on average. There is also a very small chance that a "rich asshole" purchases much more than they need, but this is the exception, not the rule. > ... any talk of market efficiency should go out of the window Quite the contrary actually. Emergencies are at least one of and potentially the most important case where the (on average) efficiencies of the market are needed. > we may just as well start analysing market efficiency of slave ownership Slave ownership is by definition extremely inefficient. That's obviously not to say that someone couldn't treat humans like cattle and turn their investments into a profit (as we are all unfortunately aware of), but if you consider the system as a whole including the alternatives (and their impacts across the economy) that could be pursued by the slaves the entire thing is a big net negative for society to the benefit of the few (slave owners). Slavery is not only evil by virtually everyone's definition of morality, it is also just plain stupid.