> "Most emergencies are sufficiently short-term that they don't meaningfully reduce incentives for new producers to enter a market, because there's no time to adapt."
I disagree here. If price-gauging was allowed, then there would definitely be an incentive to "prepare" for the inevitable emergency that would warrant the increased prices. At that point, the "increase" in price represents the effort of stockpiling, taking increased risk of product going spoiled in case emergency doesn't happen, storage costs, research into what is needed for which emergency, prepping for different emergencies, etc. The higher you allow the price to go, the more availability you can guarantee when the emergency does happen.
The problem is that we see price-gauging as a fairness issue rather than an insurance problem. Yes, people would make a profit out of the exercise, but they do that as well from normal business functioning. I don't see price-gauging on a morally different level than "why don't we provide affordable (or free) food to everyone". I'd vote for that policy right now in a heartbeat even as a libertarian. One free-food distribution center for every square kilometer in every city sounds good. What, you want people to die of starvation?
Even the term is loaded: "gauging" as if we're poking a suffering person's eyes out. Are we really that easily manipulated into falling for emotional language?
On a side note, if we were to allow "dynamic-pricing" during emergencies then one could conceivably come up with insurance products/packages that would allow individuals to very affordably manage the unlucky probability of the emergency.
I disagree here. If price-gauging was allowed, then there would definitely be an incentive to "prepare" for the inevitable emergency that would warrant the increased prices. At that point, the "increase" in price represents the effort of stockpiling, taking increased risk of product going spoiled in case emergency doesn't happen, storage costs, research into what is needed for which emergency, prepping for different emergencies, etc. The higher you allow the price to go, the more availability you can guarantee when the emergency does happen.
The problem is that we see price-gauging as a fairness issue rather than an insurance problem. Yes, people would make a profit out of the exercise, but they do that as well from normal business functioning. I don't see price-gauging on a morally different level than "why don't we provide affordable (or free) food to everyone". I'd vote for that policy right now in a heartbeat even as a libertarian. One free-food distribution center for every square kilometer in every city sounds good. What, you want people to die of starvation?
Even the term is loaded: "gauging" as if we're poking a suffering person's eyes out. Are we really that easily manipulated into falling for emotional language?
On a side note, if we were to allow "dynamic-pricing" during emergencies then one could conceivably come up with insurance products/packages that would allow individuals to very affordably manage the unlucky probability of the emergency.