citation needed. I know this is dogmatic in laissez faire capitalist philosophy, but its really not clear that this occurs in all real markets.
I'm asking you to consider whether or not your abstract economic theory is really operating as you expect it to in this situation. this is the real world we're talking about. its not a free market. its not a toy example in a text book. between naturally occurring inefficiencies, legal interventions, and unforeseen outside forces it is highly doubtful that basic supply/demand price effects can be thought to apply reliably as the textbook describes.
Sure the real world is not a perfect free market. Regulations and laws can be a huge hinderance to new market entrants...Uber ironically has felt that pain a ton with local taxi unions and laws
General microeconomics holds that markets where suppliers are earning excess profit will be targeted by new market entrants for a piece of that action. You see that happen everyday. Dollar menus at fast food restaurants, pizza specials between dominos/papa johns/pizza hut, Lyft/Uber/Taxis, Andriod/iPhones, Kindle Fire/iPads, Amazon vs every supplier known to mankind, etc
There are literally millions of real world examples of new market entrants seeking to cut costs for a increased share of a market.
Amazon does this 2.5 million times a day apparently (source: http://qz.com/157828/amazon-changes-its-prices-more-than-2-5...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
The four basic laws of supply and demand are:
1. If demand increases and supply remains unchanged, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.
2. If demand decreases and supply remains unchanged, a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price.
3. If demand remains unchanged and supply increases, a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price.
4. If demand remains unchanged and supply decreases, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.
If Uber's proposition is that you can always get a car at some price then this seems like a good way to ensure availability. Not everyone values availability above all else. A lot of people are price-sensitive. At least Uber is transparent about it. And this isn't exactly food or healthcare where somebody is going to die for lack of a cab. Different markets require different amounts of regulation.
Also, per a comment further down the thread, cabs already discriminate against the poor by simply not going to those parts of town. Presumably you can get an Uber pickup in the shittiest section of NYC.
During a public emergency? Yes.
Other than that, I think your arguments are valid and are a better point than "but they can't make egregious amounts of money off of others' pain and suffering, so it's them getting screwed".
Then we're into antitrust territory, which is a totally different can of worms.
> Would you be in favor of stores selling water for $100 a bottle before a hurricane?
If this were to happen, it means that there was not enough water in the first place. What's the alternative? Allocate to whoever shows up in line first? Then people who don't want to risk waiting pays someone in the front of the line to buy them a bottle of non-subsidized water, and the price of water hits $100 anyway - it just goes to someone else. As an example of how this works, see ticket sales to high-demand events (Super Bowl, concerts, and the like).
As an example of one strategy that works, one of the most important aspects of US Food policy is that we subsidize production so that food produced far beyond what would otherwise be the market-clearing price. This means that we don't have food shortages in times of disaster. One transportation-equivalent would be building a decent public transit system capable of mass evacuation.
When hurricanes hit, traditionally, stores DID (and arguably still do) gouge for essentials like water, gasoline, etc.
To the point where the government was forced to intervene and prevent it.
Edit: I want to add that there are extremist types who think that if you can't afford emergency healthcare, you shouldn't get it. We may just fundamentally disagree about that. I think we need to use a combination of publicly funded services (yes, by taking money from the extremely wealthy) and regulation on basic necessities to ensure that everyone has access to a minimally dignified life.
If water is selling for $100/bottle you'll find a large number of people driving trucks full of water towards a disaster zone. If you regulate the price of water to 50 cents a bottle, those same people will stay home. You can call risk/reward decisions immoral all day, but it won't change reality. You think cab drivers will work for the same crap pay during a disaster?