Some of the questions that intrigue me are:
1. What are the unintended consequences from not having a price gouging laws? Probably the merchants would stock out their stocks in order to sell it in a much higher price later on, isn't it going to affect those who are in need as well during an emergency time?
2. The author argues heavily based on the assumption of consequential ism that "the end justify its means." But isn't it hold true to a lot of people that the "end does not justify its means"? How about those people who believes that we have to have ethics in the means of economics?
3. Taking the example of Japan, during the time when tsunami struck Japan, they do not increase their price. Rather, culturally the whole society helps each other by saving without even relying on the price gouging laws. Through this, the cities around Tokyo manage to save electricity that can sustain the whole Tokyo for a month. They do not have Price Gouging Law, the price did not increase as well, but still, the goods are handled and allocated efficiently. How does that going to say about his idea that "Price Gouging Laws is unethical and impractical"?
I think that I partially agree with the author on Price Gauging Laws because not every country can be like Japan. Price Gauging Laws, in my view, works only to certain countries. It depends heavily on the culture of that particular country as well. If you are in Malaysia, without Price Gauging Laws or the intervention of the government, the price can literally go up like crazy and it leads to more corruption. However, isn't it that we all want to create a civilization that values ethics and help each other in times of disasters?