Yesterday some dude posted a video to shame apparently Indian gas station owners charging $10 a gallon around the Hurricane Helene disaster area. The lolberts answered with rebuttals that free market pricing is the best rationing mechanism in a time of scarcity.
People are saying that the gas station could ration gallons per customer and keep the same price, and the lolberts are saying this is communist price control.
I'm not really sure how much merit is held by either position since I've never really thought about this with respect to a disaster area. Clearly the 1973 price controls were a bad idea, but this is a debate over what a private business owner should do after a hurricane. My gut feeling is that gas should be rationed by customer, not by pricing. But maybe the gas station is passing along supply chain pricing to a certain extent?
edit: Texas punished gas price gouging in 2019 after Hurricane Harvey.
It's going to run out anyway if you keep the price, preventing those stations from bidding for more up the supply chain, naturally further limiting supplies by stopping the pricing signal in its tracks.
Sowell's Basic Economics talks about this phenomenon. "Profit is the price paid for efficiency."
What does Sowell say about people existing in a breakdown of law and order deciding it's "cheaper" to kill the gas station owner and take the gas instead of paying his asking price? Surely that newfound substitution effect must have some impact on prices.
Then gas price rises off the chart, because no more is being extracted and produced. If it's only localized breakdown, then wider society should seek feasible punishment or ostracize. Many societal evils stem from deciding homeless, disabled, etc have a positive right to live. Rational people are more incentivized to protect or avenge the shopkeeper if they fear utter isolation of their community from prodctive society.
If you were to become homeless and/or disabled this week, would you still claim a "positive right to live"?
Positive right means compelling others, under threat of prison, to provide to the unfortunate, while putting a halo on his own head for voting "compassionately". I would take services offered by government or charity, but never campaign or vote for said government services.