> Price controls is not regulating markets, is completely closing them. Putting out the fire, not harnessing it. Well, no. People manufacturing masks still ha

> Price controls is not regulating markets, is completely closing them. Putting out the fire, not harnessing it. Well, no. People manufacturing masks still have a choice as to whether to make masks at the price-controlled price or not. If it's not cost-effective, they won't make any. If it's adequately cost-effective, they'll make the normal amount. If the price controls are still fairly lucrative, they'll be encouraged to make more product. On the other hand, the knowledge that there will be no limits on "surge pricing" might encourage people to build up stockpiles to smooth out shocks in supply or demand; whereas, the knowledge that there will be limits on "surge pricing" might discourage people from building up stockpiles, thus making shocks in supply or demand worse. In both cases, "the market" is still doing what the market does: optimizing for the particular inputs it's given. The question is, which outcome do we prefer? EDIT: And, is the market actually the right tool for this particular job? For instance, in the case of vital medical equipment such as N95 masks, maybe it makes sense to have the government stockpile reserves, rather than relying on the market to do it.