Demonizing price gouging tells producers that there's no incentive to build up resiliency because at time when it's needed, they'll just get accused of price gouging.
When bird flu comes around, I keep it out. Which means I have same volume of eggs, and selling them at market prices... increased profit.
Then the mob comes around complaining that I'm price gouging.
Demonizing price gouging has nothing to do with resiliency. Corporations run things as lean as possible at all times because it's not a good gamble to keep a lot of stock of perishable items for the once every couple of decades shortage in your specific item.
Home Depot would have a reason to stock a few more snow shovels every winter and Valero would have reason to pay a few more trucks overtime before a hurricane if they knew that they'd make their money back and then some in expected value. They might decide to or not, they might be right or wrong, but that's reality.
It might not make sense even without laws limiting what you can charge for your products to stock up for such situations -- there are other ways we might want to incent things if it's worth it.
Note: this is talking about price gouging situations. The egg thing is a different situation, where the accusation -- despite the headline -- is collusion, not price gouging.