Why do you assume that? During Sandy there was plenty of water to go around, and supplies were delivered. There was availability. Maybe if some asshole bought all the supplies available in a store then there might a be a problem, but guess what- no-one did.
If that situation had persisted it would actually be one of the rare situations where rationing makes sense- and that rationing would logically be controlled by the government. Which makes all the free market Rand-ians foam at the mouth- despite the fact that it makes sense.
Look Untog, on the one hand, we have what you saw with your own eyes.
On the other hand, I just finished my freshman year in economics, and when we draw a dotted line across the X of supply/demand, then there's this little triangle see? Shade it in. Yeah. So anyways that's what happened. BTW, there's no axis for "natural disaster" on my graph so clearly that's irrelevant. I don't know why you're bringing up red herrings.
Yes, of course, but it does not follow that those products are being optimally allocated by price like a normal economy. Normal economies adjust to produce more, natural disaster is a temporary state with different rules.
It becomes a public policy issue (we have too few and how to apportion in the short term) rather than an economic issue.
Rationing by the government makes randians "foam at the mouth" because as the government has proven over and over again, it is inept at thinking about every possible scenario that could exist, and rigid rules often fail to take into account a situation in which the best social good may be free market prices. Say there is a 2 gallon every two days ration. Now, if someone has their huge suv and uses it only to drive back and forth once a day between their house and school a mile a way but has an empty tank when the hurricane hit, under the ration they would be entitled to a lot of gas that they do not need. However, a private delivery business owner who makes all of his deliveries in his own car may use a tank a day, but now can only use a gallon a day. The deliveryman may be willing to pay a x% premium to make his deliveries, while the suv owner would not. People are going to be screwed in either case: either no gas available or cannot afford it. But people should at least be allowed to make the decision of whether or not to buy expensive gas.
If there was plenty of water and supplies were delivered, then there would be no incentive for the price increase and no need to have a law about it.
During Sandy, much of the price 'gouging' discussion was regarding gas supplies. The effect of price gouging laws was that people who had time waited in line and then sold their tank of gas on the secondary market where the price gouging law was not followed.
It is really hard to make the laws of supply and demand obey legislative commands.
If that situation had persisted it would actually be one of the rare situations where rationing makes sense- and that rationing would logically be controlled by the government. Which makes all the free market Rand-ians foam at the mouth- despite the fact that it makes sense.