Read the article titled “In Houston after Hurricane Harvey, price-gougers have the moral high ground (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.” from the Washington Examiner. You should include a brief summary of the article and then an argument either supporting or refuting it. To produce a decent response, I expect at least one double-spaced full page. Some questions to keep in mind are the following (these do not necessarily have to be addressed, but they are intended to help focus and streamline your response):

• The authors use water as their example good, but they do not address the issue of Lamborghini prices following a hurricane. Should people be allowed to “price gouge” with Lamborghini sales following a devastating hurricane? How about with Jeeps? Why might someone answer differently as to whether “price-gouging” is acceptable or not for water, Lamborghinis, and Jeeps?
• Is there a price for a single bottle of water that could be reached that would cause you to immediately get in your car with a case of it from Wal-Mart and speed down the interstate straight to Houston in order to make some money? $20/bottle? $500/bottle? How about $1,000,000/bottle?
• Do the authors leave out any downside of “price-gouging”? If so, what might be some negative consequences of allowing it during the aftermath of a national disaster?