Of course, I understand that people want to caste "gouging" as a moral issue. It makes it easier to justify going after the person who is "gouging". But as I keep pointing out, higher prices is what brings in competition and drives down the price. Artificially keeping the price low only slows down the arrival on new supply and ensures that people pay via going without. Exactly how moral is it to enforce laws that keep people without food?

When will people finally get rid of this Medival notion of a "just price"?

Oh and ken, you just don't seem to get it?

While it might be counterproductive to put price ceilings, during a temporary supply disruption, on things like diamonds and furs, this is not true of essential commodities like food, shelter, or energy. Unless the management of companies are pure heartless beasts a large part of their motivation to get supply back on line is because their fellow citizens need it. Excess profits are nice but are just an unearned adjunct to what they would do anyway. Making criminal the explotation of of a temporary supply disruption helps them keep their moral and ethical obligations clearly in mind while they go about their job.

If everyone thought like you we would not have a civil society.

Now that Katrina has passed, a significant portion of our nation's refining capacity has been taken off line at least temporarily. As a result, gas prices have increased significantly (who thought we'd be nostalgic about gas at $2.50 per gallon). For...