Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the arguments are orthogonal. As such, getting into a point-by-point is of questionable merit. Its not that I don't understand what you are saying. To put it another way, economics is based on the premise of risk, not uncertainty. The two are significantly different. The purpose of political economy (ie, the orthogonal approach) is to box uncertainty and turn it into risk for a sub-space of actions. We can then s…
I'm sorry, but to be honest, no, this doesn't make much more sense to me after rereading. I'm sure there are elements of macroeconomics that don't apply in disasters, but all I'm talking about is the law of supply and demand, and how a 10% cap on gasoline price increases causes problems with it. I feel like basic supply and demand remains meaningful the day after a hurricane.
The logical flow of this argument, with respect to the HN thread is as follows:
1) Opportunistim is predictable and adverse, so it creates distortions, as resources are allocated ex-ante to mitigate its impact.
2) Laws exist to minimize opportunistic behaviour, to minimize the distrotions and resources allocated to minimizing its impact.
3) Per (2), the existence of these laws is incrementally efficient.
4) Anti-gouging rules (2) when observed empirically, are not evidence that the market is broken.
5) Rather, these laws are on the books to make markets work better. Directionally.
[(4) was the original claim, starting this sub-thread]
You're most interested in "correctly" specifying the parametric details of (4). But while this is a valid line of inquiry, its not central to my larger point (5). Good arguments exist that the less change there is the better. Also, the precision of the tools normally used begins to decline.
The analytical toolkit one needs take the debate further is beyond a basic (textbook) understanding of supply and demand. While "supply and demand remains meaningful", it does so in a certain place, under certain contraints and assumptions. All of which are now variants. The pre-sumption of equilibrium becomes questionable, externalities dominant, etc.
To wit: The edge case of supply and demand is, classicaly, the boundary of the firm. Inside the firm, supply and demand does not apply. Resources are allocated more efficiently by fiat than by negotiation.
So, in the same way that internalizing resource allocation into a firm is not a problem during the normal course for firms, its not per-se problematic to temporarily suspend or modify market trading terms in an emergency, and even to do so under the (correct) rationale of "efficiency".