"Price Gouging" (of gasoline) should be limited (or eliminated) by the United States Government*

I have not done any research for this. No transcripts of Congressional hearings or debates, no statistical analysis of past disasters, no case law research. I have not even looked at any of the legislation referred to above. For the time being I will rely on a common sense approach. Proposition: During civil emergencies, corporations (or is it gasoline sellers generally, regardless of their legal status?) should not be allowed to charge prices for gasoline in excess of what is fair and reasonable. Competing interests: 1.The interest of protecting sellers against overregulation and lesser profits or potential losses 2.The interest of preserving the doctrine of free-market economy Versus 1.The interest of protecting consumers from financial exploitation during times of particular vulnerability 2.The interest of ensuring speedy and effective evacuation and aid delivery 3.The interest of preventing a surge in crime even higher than is already expected during emergencies At the outset, protection against overregulation is only necessary to the extent to which overregulation could be said to lead to some detriment. Free-market economy is a fine concept operating throughout the capitalist world. Prices are set by supply and demand and (in theory at least) this leads to economic balance where the market itself sets the prices of commodities. In an emergency, there is usually a sudden surge in demand for many commodities and gasoline is at the very forefront of this. People often face electrical blackouts and choose to rely on gasoline-driven generators. People want to stock up for the "rainy day" (rainier day?). This will of course depend on the nature of the emergency. There will be many emergencies where the need for gasoline actually decreases as, for example, roads become unusable, large areas are flooded, etc. However, should demand suddenly increase, this gives sellers the potential to suddenly raise their prices and thereby exploit the situation for profit. Since the subject matter is limited to increasing gas prices to ‘above that which is fair and reasonable', it is understood that the Government-imposed maximums in those situations would never be set below net cost of acquisition. Thus, there is no question of losses to be incurred by the seller. The only result of not having the consumer protection measure in issue would be that the seller would be allowed to potentially dramatically increase its profits at the cost of a buyer population already faced with a difficult and distressing situation. It should be kept in mind that gas prices are the base for most other prices. Their increase is very quickly followed by increases in most other goods as the acquisition cost of those goods is a factor of the cost of gas (goods need to be delivered to their point of sale). To allow gas sellers to increase their prices at will at a time of a destabilized supply/demand curve would therefore result in economic repercussions throughout the region and considerable hardship on the local population. There would of course then be an increase in crime as some consumers would feel driven to loot and otherwise obtain unlawfully not only gas but also other commodities. With this comes a surge in violence. Much needed emergency services and help providers are equally dependent on gasoline for transport of personnel and goods. A sudden surge in gas prices would impede this process and deprive their already tight coffers of funds that are needed to deliver effective aid to the struggling community. Naturally, at some point external aid can be expected to arrive. How much time this process will take will of course depend on the location and the nature of the emergency. There are very many unknowns in this scenario. In many situations some of the above might not be an issue. However, for those few where they are an issue, governments must carry the power to prevent these woes. It is all a balancing exercise. The pocket of few versus the life, health and safety of many. In my view the latter should win the day.