I think the misunderstanding here is that, like most people, you don't like when sellers make huge profits off scarce goods. After all, the seller has more than enough of the good for himself. Why is he also making absurd amounts of money off those who lack it? It feels wrong.
But prices aren't arbitrary. If the price of a good rises, it's because people bought all the ones being sold for lower prices. If people are buying hand sanitizer at $20 per bottle, it's because they can't find any for $19 or $18, let alone for $2 per bottle. The only reason this guy could sell hand sanitizer at such a price was because nobody else was selling it for cheaper.
Now the typical response to this point is that the prices wouldn't be high if we stopped middle-men from buying up all the supply. There's one solution that eliminates middle-men: Stores could raise prices. Then arbitrage wouldn't be possible. Sadly, stores tend not to raise prices because they're worried about violating price-gouging laws. It seems their fears are warranted.
But even in this situation, middle-men don't cause shortages. There aren't massive amounts of hand sanitizer sitting in peoples' garages. These middle-men want to sell their stock and they want to sell it quickly. They know manufacturing will ramp up. They know people will discover or build substitutes. If they wait a couple months to sell, they'll end up losing money. (Especially once you count shipping, storage, and hazardous materials costs. Hand sanitizer is flammable and requires special shipping & insurance.) These middle-men don't destroy any hand sanitizer. They don't hoard it in storage for months. It's the same amount of hand sanitizer, but it goes to desperate people in New York and New Jersey instead of people in a county in Tennessee with only one confirmed infection (at the time).
The main reason for these price spikes and shortages wasn't hoarders or middle-men. It's because demand for hand sanitizer skyrocketed. Every public venue, every workplace, every household wanted it. There simply wasn't enough to go around. This was especially true in New York and New Jersey which were experiencing the brunt of the disease. It was less true in Tennessee where many stores had shelves full of un-utilized supplies. With price caps, people in Tennessee would have bought more bottles of hand sanitizer "just to be sure" and it would likely have been un-utilized or underutilized in their homes. Meanwhile, people in the epicenter of the infection would go without.
Had this man been allowed to sell his goods, and had he sold them at a lower price, he would have run out sooner and they wouldn't have been utilized as efficiently. The lucky people who first found out about it would have bought more "just in case" since, well, supply is scarce. And when someone else showed up an hour later, so desperate that they'd be willing to pay $20/bottle, they'd be out of luck.
Whether or not this guy makes a huge profit is insignificant compared to whether or not supplies get to the people who are most desperate for them. That's what price mechanisms encourage. It's certainly not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than price caps.
But prices aren't arbitrary. If the price of a good rises, it's because people bought all the ones being sold for lower prices. If people are buying hand sanitizer at $20 per bottle, it's because they can't find any for $19 or $18, let alone for $2 per bottle. The only reason this guy could sell hand sanitizer at such a price was because nobody else was selling it for cheaper.
Now the typical response to this point is that the prices wouldn't be high if we stopped middle-men from buying up all the supply. There's one solution that eliminates middle-men: Stores could raise prices. Then arbitrage wouldn't be possible. Sadly, stores tend not to raise prices because they're worried about violating price-gouging laws. It seems their fears are warranted.
But even in this situation, middle-men don't cause shortages. There aren't massive amounts of hand sanitizer sitting in peoples' garages. These middle-men want to sell their stock and they want to sell it quickly. They know manufacturing will ramp up. They know people will discover or build substitutes. If they wait a couple months to sell, they'll end up losing money. (Especially once you count shipping, storage, and hazardous materials costs. Hand sanitizer is flammable and requires special shipping & insurance.) These middle-men don't destroy any hand sanitizer. They don't hoard it in storage for months. It's the same amount of hand sanitizer, but it goes to desperate people in New York and New Jersey instead of people in a county in Tennessee with only one confirmed infection (at the time).
The main reason for these price spikes and shortages wasn't hoarders or middle-men. It's because demand for hand sanitizer skyrocketed. Every public venue, every workplace, every household wanted it. There simply wasn't enough to go around. This was especially true in New York and New Jersey which were experiencing the brunt of the disease. It was less true in Tennessee where many stores had shelves full of un-utilized supplies. With price caps, people in Tennessee would have bought more bottles of hand sanitizer "just to be sure" and it would likely have been un-utilized or underutilized in their homes. Meanwhile, people in the epicenter of the infection would go without.
Had this man been allowed to sell his goods, and had he sold them at a lower price, he would have run out sooner and they wouldn't have been utilized as efficiently. The lucky people who first found out about it would have bought more "just in case" since, well, supply is scarce. And when someone else showed up an hour later, so desperate that they'd be willing to pay $20/bottle, they'd be out of luck.
Whether or not this guy makes a huge profit is insignificant compared to whether or not supplies get to the people who are most desperate for them. That's what price mechanisms encourage. It's certainly not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than price caps.