>...An important point the article didn’t address is that high prices direct resources to more important uses. That is a good point. Another point is (as Paul

>...An important point the article didn’t address is that high prices direct resources to more important uses. That is a good point. Another point is (as Paul Romer mentioned in an interview), high profits during a shortage mean that suppliers in general will be incentivized to keep a larger stockpile of things that have a good shelf-life since they know they will be able to make good money the next time there is a shortage. If you are going to literally make it illegal to try this, then you better have a government be willing to spend its tax dollars on creating a stockpile rather than on things that are more likely to get votes. (We've now seen that all the talk of the national stockpile was greatly exaggerated.) A majority of economists are opposed to 'price gouging' laws. For example see http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/price-gouging/ http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/price-gouging/