Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong
Speaking as an economist, I tend to get nervous when other economists talk about circumstances where &quot;morality trumps economics.&quot;  As a profession, we have a miserable track record on morality.  Economists widely endorsed eugenics in the first half of the 20th century, for example.  And many modern economists endorse a minimum wage, as eugenicists did then, but with even less regard for the harm it causes.  Personally, I find it hard to entertain an economist&#x27;s morality argument unless it goes something like, &quot;We shouldn&#x27;t do that because it could harm people.&quot;<p>In this article, The Economist is telling governments to force companies to produce &quot;large supplies at fixed prices&quot;.  Even if governments had that kind of authority in free countries, and they probably don&#x27;t, that sounds like a policy that could easily cause harm.  Companies can&#x27;t just push one lever to maximum and expect nothing else to change.  But most importantly, we don&#x27;t need it.  Yes, we&#x27;ve seen some small-time punks buy up too much hand sanitizer, but the big manufacturers are being decent.  As The Economist pointed out, &quot;3M, one of the world’s biggest manufacturers of high-end masks ... has stuck to its list prices and doubled its production.&quot;  So there&#x27;s not very good empirical or theoretical support for this idea.  But there&#x27;s hope for economists - &quot;more than half&quot; of economists surveyed about this idea criticized it.