That's my point, I should know better but I don't, even more so now after this thread. I am aware of the counter-arguments but the flaws in reasoning seem to be in the counter-arguments. To me, there is no argument that flat out disqualifies the idea of price gauging.

My favourite counter-argument is that hoarders are not rational and that they miscalculate the point of greatest utility, which means they hoard the goods until new deliveries are available.

That's a fair point, but there is no need to fix prices to resolve this. Instead, the government, or actually anybody, could offer an online market where people register their supply and demand and the time of availability. That would turn every hoarder into a rational market participant. Funny enough, Amazon could have been such a place.

Related to hoarders is the argument that allocating resources by price is unfair towards the poor. That's true to a certain extend, but first of all, it ignores that being poor is a slow death anyway since they are already out-priced out of full medical care and healthy food anyway. The crisis just highlights the problem to the point that fewer people than usual are able to ignore it.

When it comes to resources, then the poor aren't poor by choice but by handicaps. Fixing the prices leads to allocation by first come first serve. Will the poor be able to stand up early and catch the first bus into town to queue for hours until they catch one of those cheap toilet papers? Do they know at all about those shops or can't they leave their area, an area that doesn't have a shop that serves fresh produces (as in vegetables) and most likely will be last when it comes to the distribution of scarce goods.

With free prices, goods are available at any time at any quantity. Poor people can buy the products between two shifts or let one person with a car buy it and distribute it. If they lose their job, they can even make a living in distributing goods from surplus areas to areas in need.

I tend to believe that many who care for the poor just use them to defend their own turf. If the poor can get cheap products then so can the better-offs. The problem is that scarce goods are scarce. Somebody has to remain empty-handed. Will it be the disconnected poor person in whose name we keep prices low or will it be the better-off person who is caring for the poor person?

The only time when price-fixing is useful is when there is plenty of supply but prices rise anyway. But how is this possible? It could happen when hoarders take supply off the market. But this can be mitigated by access to information as I have pointed out at the beginning. On the other hand, as has been pointed out, price fixing during WW2 has made petrol scarce.

Furthermore, price fixing ignores that there is not only demand today but also tomorrow. They assume that producers increase production to the limits and that the overall supplies are fixed. As I have written in my comment, more resources are needed to start new production lines or haul in resources from other areas. That has been ignored in many comments.

Another interesting argument is the baby formula argument: the baby has to be fed now. I guess you are familiar with the practices of a huge food company when it comes to free formula samples in Africa. Hook the mothers on formula, let their breasts dry up, and then make them pay. It's outrageous in Africa because the inability to buy the milk becomes existential which makes the problem visible. The same mechanism applies here, it's usually just not visible. Do you have to protect the parents from the company or the baby from those parents?

If the life of your baby depends on a product, how is it possible that you don't have a comfortable buffer? Shifting the blame on market prices is a comfortable way of avoiding the decision that somebody else does not only have to take care of providing formula but the full care of the baby. That said, a caring society can also pool money and buy the formula for the family. The prices are high because there has to be formula not only today but also tomorrow. Forcing the sale today, without triggering new production through high prices, will lead to starving babies tomorrow. It punishes the person who has kept an eye on supply and demand whereas the crisis shows that more people are needed to keep an eye on supply chains. The hoarder has actually sent a signal up the production chain to start producing more formula a week or even a month before the formula was needed. That signal is the life saver for many babies because it makes more formula available.

Finally I want to point out that my total account vote count has been reduced by at least 13 points from its peak. This could mean that my comment is bad but it could also mean that people punish me for rising the question. I don't mind. My comment has led to very nice arguments on both sides and I enjoy reading all answers. That said, there is a line of argument about which side is a religion and which side is a science. To me, the downvotes rhyme with the fixed price line of reasoning being a religion. Overall, I remain undecided. To me, fixing prices distorts the market most likely against the weakest players and free prices only work if there is enough information available. After all, there is no non-free market. As some comment has pointed out, life finds a way.