Also the world supply is short and no amount of lawmaking will materialize more masks. There's not enough masks for everyone and there won't be any time (very) soon, plain and simple. It takes a factory, not a lawmaker to increase the supply.
Brick and mortar stores generally won't raise prices under these circumstances despite the scarcity, because it might create a long term negative reputation even if they can get a bit more profit in the short term. So there's an opportunity for arbitrage that eBay no longer facilitates.
You seem to think it's possible to eliminate all resale markets, and thus eliminate the arbitrage opportunity. Ignoring the fact that hoarding would still exist, I would say such a thing is essentially impossible. Which makes the only way to eliminate the price difference (supply and demand curves held static) to have the store raise prices.
There’s another version of this that goes: stores raise prices and are cleared out for hoarding and arbitrage.
What is the price for masks that will alleviate panic and / or greed?
It is possible to significantly reduce resale markets by going after price-gougers though. It doesn't have to be perfect to have the intended effect, and the threat of being busted is usually enough to push it to the edges. This assumes a certain level of law & order though, so in areas with thriving black markets the effect lessens.
Similarly, it's possible to reduce hoarding by putting a limit sold per customer. Not perfect, but helps. Hoarding definitely happens, but only certain goods are really things people realistically hoard.
There's another argument I'm not seeing brought up, but one that is key to the argument. The reason why we tend to have laws and regulations around situations where people are desperate is a moral obligation. These laws and regulations acknowledge the vulnerability of people in these situations - we are not homo economicus when our lives or those of our loved ones are on the line.
In the case of price gouging, it disproportionately affects the poor. I'm seeing a lot of comments coming from a place of privilege, where people see the upside of higher prices (more stock for them) and not the downsides (a person goes to the store to get some and cannot afford them).
I understand the different points being made, however this is hardly the first time this type of thing has happened or been debated.
I'm all for more solidarity, but this statement, at face value, is pure oppressive communism. Being wealthy should give you certain privileges, otherwise there's no point in even trying to be better / smarter / more skilled / more productive!
Obviously we can argue whether or not any specific intervention should, or should not, affect people differently based on wealth (e.g. I imagine many people would be quite angry if there were traffic lanes for wealthy people, though they seem to be OK with it at airports), but your comment isn't arguing why this specific instance should be equally distributed (health & wellbeing generally isn't, even in EU "socialized medicine" countries - and that's a good thing too, because then the rich can afford to fund new research, drugs & medical procedures).
I'm guessing you're trying to be snarky with this bit?
> anyone price gouging in a crisis must be evil, after all
That's kind of text definition of "evil". Taking advantage of people panicking. Pragmatic, probably rich by the end of the thing, but still evil.
Evil would be denying those goods to someone based on their race/gender/age. Or taking action to prevent more of the good from being made/delivered - which you might notice anti-price-gouging laws do.
Actually, the high prices on eBay should incentivize mask makers to produce more for the general public.
In a pandemic panic scenario the perceived value of an individual mask increases. This is where capitalism should shine
There may not be any spare capacity, and new facilities take time to build.
[Giant sarcasm alert]